NUNC COGNOSCO EX PARTE

TRENT UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

1

n/

C\

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2019 with funding from
Kahle/Austin Foundation

https://archive.org/details/worldoflabourdisOOOOcole

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

Labour’s Medical Advisers

A DEMONSTRATION IN THE NEW STATESMANSHIP

THE WORLD OF
LABOUR

A DISCUSSION OF THE PRESENT AND
FUTURE OF TRADE UNIONISM

G. D. H. COLE

WITH A FRONTISPIECE BY WILL DYSON

SECOND AND REVISED EDITION

LONDON

G. BELL AND SONS LTD.
1 9 1 5

PREFACE TO THE NEW EDITION

In the two years that have passed since this book
first appeared, I have found out many of its faults.
In the changes made in the present edition, I have
aimed not so much at bringing it up to date, as at
correcting what I now see to have been definite mis¬
takes and false conclusions. The greater number of
the changes occur in Chapters VII. and VIII., in which
the structure and government of Trade Unionism are
dealt with. I have also corrected my account of
National Guilds in Chapter XI., which was, in the
earlier edition, misleading.

The present-day problems arising out of the European
war, which make it impossible to bring this book up to
date just now, I have surveyed in another book —
Labour in War Time.

G. D. H. COLE.

Magdalen College, Oxford,

July 1915.

V

PREFACE

No book on Trade Unionism can avoid being very
largely a book about books. It is impossible for me
to acknowledge, save in the form of a bibliography,
the immense amount of unacknowledged borrowing
this volume contains. I can only mention here, what
any reader will soon see for himself, that I, like all
students of Trade Unionism, owe a great deal to Mr.
and Mrs. Webb for their standard works on the subject.
I mention this debt because I very often disagree
with their conclusions ; but, whatever view I took, I
could not help going to their History of Trade Unionism
and Industrial Democracy for admirably arranged
and accurate information. A second debt which I
cannot leave unrecorded is to the New Age, which too
seldom gets, from writers on Socialism and Trade
Unionism, the credit it deserves. I am far from
agreeing with all the views expressed by the New
Age ; but I find in it and- nowhere else a sense that
theory and practice are not naturally separable, and
an attempt to face the problems of Trade Unionism
in the light of a whole view of life. I believe the
series of articles on Guild Socialism and the Wage
System, which have appeared in the New Age during
the last two years, are shortly to appear in book

vii

Vlll

PREFACE

form. The large class of persons that has for so
long persistently neglected the New Age will then
have another chance to bring itself up to date, and
my obligation will become still more manifest.

I owe very much to my friends also. Much that
I have gained from scattered conversations and
discussions I cannot well acknowledge ; and especially
for a great deal of information that I have got from
various Trade Unionist friends I can only render
general acknowledgment. My greatest debt is to
Mr. W. Mellor, of the Fabian Research Department,
to whom I owe many valuable suggestions embodied
in Chapters VIE and VIII., and with whom I am
now collaborating in a series of penny pamphlets
designed to expound, in relation to specific problems,
the Greater Unionism for which this book also is
a plea. The first of these Pamphlets of the Greater
Unionism, itself called The Greater Unionism, has
recently been issued by the National Labour Press.1

I must also thank Mr. W. Stephen Sanders for
allowing me to use, in Chapter VI., unpublished
information relating to German Trade Unionism, and
Mr. A. E. Zimmern for a very interesting letter con¬
cerning the Labour movement in America.

G. D. H. COLE.

Magdalen College, Oxford,

September 1913.

1 Only the first pamphlet of this series appeared ; but I
hope soon to replace it by a new series of larger studies dealing
with Trade Unionism in each of the principal industries.

CONTENTS

CHAP.

I.

II.

III.

V.

MEANS AND ENDS .

THE LABOUR UNREST .

/LABOUR IN FRANCE .

COMMENTS ON THE FRENCH LABOUR MOVEMENT .
LABOUR IN AMERICA .

VI. FURTHER LESSONS FROM ABROAD - THE GENERAL

STRIKE .....

TRADE UNION STRUCTURE - INDUSTRIAL UNIONISM

AND AMALGAMATION . . (

VIII. TRADE UNION GOVERNMENT - CENTRALISATION AND

LOCAL AUTONOMY ....

IX. SOCIAL PEACE AND SOCIAL WAR— CONCILIATION AND
ARBITRATION ....

vx/

XII.

XIII.

XIV.

LABOUR’S RF.D HERRINGS - THE FUNCTION OF CO¬
OPERATION . .

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY - SYNDICALISM AND

COLLECTIVISM .

THE FUTURE OF TRADE UNIONISM .

ECONOMICS AND POLITICS . . . .

HOPES AND FEARS ....

BIBLIOGRAPHY .

INDEX ......

PAGE

I

30
58
10 1
128

166

259

285

320

344

370

393

413

427

437

IX

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

CHAPTER I
MEANS AND ENDS

It is not too much to say that, during the past two or
three years, we have been in the midst of a double
Labour Unrest. There has been, first and most recog-
nisably, the new New Unionism, an awakening of the
fighting spirit in the ranks of organised labour ; but
there has been at the same time, both as cause and
as consequent, an intellectual unrest which may be
called the Labour movement in search of a philosophy.
These two stirrings of popular will and imagination
have acted and reacted on each other continually, and
we have often been tempted to believe that their com¬
bination was imminent ; but in the main, each has
taken its own course and managed to inspire the other
with no more than a phrase or an illustration. Thus
we find. the word Syndicalism used loosely by New
Unionists as a name for their point of view, and, on the
other hand, the Coal Strike used, by real Syndicalists,
as an example of the national awakening of the Syndi¬
calist spirit in England. But in fact, the New Union¬
ists are not Syndicalists, and the Coal Strike was not
an experiment in Syndicalism.

We are about to use the history of these two unrests
to define our attitude both to the more immediate future
and to the remoter possibilities of the situation of the

2

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

Labour movement in Great Britain. It is difficult to do
this without betraying a double impatience; bothUtopian
revolutionaries and Social Reformers are hard to suffer
gladly, and it is no less hard to find anywhere a combina¬
tion of idealism and a readiness to recognise that facts
are facts. It is not the purpose of this book either to
define the perfect society in vacuo, or to flounder vaguely
in the Serbonian bogs of social ‘ betterment The ques¬
tion is, ‘ What can be made of the Labour movement,
taken as it is ? ’ or still better, ‘ What is the Labour
movement capable of making of itself ? ’ What, in fact,
are its practicality and its idealism respectively worth ?

It is the tidier method to begin with the theorists.
It is the most striking contrast between the British
and the continental Labour movements that here the
intellectuals seem to have so little influence as to
be almost negligible. Socialist theory, so fruitful of
quarrels abroad, has been in England, at least till
quite lately, unimportant. There have been plenty
of differences in the ranks, but they have been on
practical rather than on theoretical questions. It
might seem, then, that theory should be, in this country,
very much an open matter. But in reality we have
been saved from important divergences within the
Labour movement 1 not because our intellectuals have
had no influence, but because a single and ve^y practi¬
cally-minded body of them long ago carried the day.
The first leaders of the Fabian Society, and in particular
Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Webb, were able so completely,
through the Independent Labour Party, to impose their

1 The Social Democratic Party has indeed been all along in
opposition, but it has seldom caused serious embarrassment to
its opponents. Only in the last few years has there been really
strong division among the theorists, e.g. the Fabians and the
New Age.

MEANS AND ENDS

3

conception of society on the Labour movement that it
seemed unnecessary for any one to do any further
thinking. On such a view, the intellectual problem
of Labour was solved, and only the practical problems
remained : the Labour movement therefore became
intensely ‘ practical’, and, so far as the end in view
was concerned, as fantastically fatalistic as the worst
of the later followers of Marx. The progress of Labour
was beautifully resolved into the gradual evolution of
a harmony divinely pre-established by the Fabian
Society in the early nineties. The history of the recent
intellectual unrest is, in great measure, the sign that
Labour has at last used up the inspiration of the early
Fabians, and is turning elsewhere for light — to what
is vaguely called Syndicalism from what Mr. Punch has
named ' Sidney webbicalism ’.

In the Socialist theory of the eighties and the early
nineties, no doubt vagueness and muddle were the
weaknesses and dangers. Fabianism and Collectivism
triumphed just because they were able to offer the
worker something definite, tangible and intelligible,
an elaborate scheme of social reconstruction which
was universal without being blurred, and which was,
further, recognisably taking the direction in which
industry was, of its own accord, tending continually
more and more. For the moment this scheme was
satisfying ; it seemed to offer a ‘ State-Providence ’
which was an assurance of ultimate success ; it looked
both reasonable and practicable in the highest degree.
Yet nowadays all the papers, from the Morning Post to
the Daily Herald, are full of the ‘ collapse of Collectiv¬
ism ’, and behind so much smoke there must be, at
any rate, some fire. On the other hand, what can no
longer be taken for the whole truth may well be an
important part of the truth, and there has clearly been

4

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

too much readiness to throw the baby out with the
bathwater, and make away with the whole Collectivist
theory. What is wanted is not annihilation and a
new start, but revaluation and a new synthesis.

In face of the growing distrust of the State in all its
forms, of representative government and the ‘ House
of Pretence \1 in face of Mr. Belloc’s very French
Servile State bogy, in face of the rising tide of the
force of revolt the newspapers call Syndicalism, is it
not necessary to admit that what Fabianism gained
in definiteness it, at any rate partly, lost in breadth ?
Its very success was the result of its limitations, and
its limitations are in turn making its inadequacy felt.
So we have the vague uprising of Syndicalism, which
is in itself much more an instinctive protest than a
new philosophy. The wage-earner crying for freedom
refuses to believe that the General Will of a bureau¬
cratic Cabinet “ leaves him as free as before ” : he
exclaims against the tyranny of democracy, but is at
a loss at present to point the way to a new freedom.
Just at this point philosophy, in the course of a
somewhat similar evolution, offers him her aid : the
Anarchism of Nietzsche’s ‘ revaluation of all values ’
gives place to the elan vital of the Bergsonians, and
M. Bergson’s assertion of instinct as the equal of reason
takes on a political aspect which he certainly did not
foresee. M. Sorel, the philosopher of Syndicalism, in
his Reflexions sur la Violence, takes up the parable,
and the free-will controversy becomes a political ques¬
tion. In England, a Conservative like Mr. Fabian
Ware, in his book The Worker and his Country, is found
acclaiming the Syndicalist movement as an assertion
of instinct against reason.

What, at bottom, does all this worship of instinct

1 The Daily Herald’s regular name for the House of Commons.

MEANS AND ENDS

5

mean ? It is clear that there is a widespread break¬
down of the old reverence for law and order, a readi¬
ness not merely to disobey, but to give theoretical
justifications for disobedience. There is a feeling that
the great State has got out of touch with the people,
and that no mere democratic machinery at elections
will be able to bring it back again. There is a new
individualism, an assertion that the individual, as the
only sentient being, is after all ultimate, a reassertion
in a new form of Herbert Spencer’s argument against
Socialism that “ the State has no common sensorium
And there is a claim, on behalf of the individual, for a
greater measure of effective self-government than can
be given by the ballot-box and the local constituency.

All these protests, however, are mainly negative :
they point to something wrong, without directly indi¬
cating the remedy. The worship of instinct is in form
a worship of the indeterminate, when what is wanted
is a new determination. Unrest requires direction, but
at present there is no clear lead given save that of the
old Collectivism itself. An advance to a new positive
theory can only be hoped for when Collectivism is put
in its place, when the gaps in its theory are more
adequately understood, and when the materials at hand
for reconstruction have been more fully examined.

Parliamentary Labour, Fabianism and Trade Union¬
ism have been at one with Radicalism in regarding
the social problem as first and foremost a question
of distribution, of the division of the national income.
Marx did not originate, but only formulated clearly
and consistently from a particular standpoint, the
view that, in modern society, industry tends continu¬
ally to further concentration. Production on a large
scale is assumed to be cheapest and most efficient, and
it is therefore assumed that political reform must take

6

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

the course of furthering and completing the transition
to it by handing over to State Monopoly (or State
Capitalism) the industries which are already being
gathered rapidly into the hands of private monopolists.
This process, being regarded as inevitable, settles the
question of production, and the dominant fact of the
industrial situation becomes a three-cornered fight
between masters, men and consumers for the appro¬
priation of the national dividend. In this warfare of
profits, wages and prices, one at least is recognised as
beyond the control of legislation. Where the private
trader can put up his prices to meet his wages bill —
and who shall stop him ? — it is inevitable that the
public and semi-public employer should be allowed to
do the same. So the result of the Railway settlement
is the Railways Bill. Nor has the consumer, except as
a Co-operator, succeeded in organising to resist the
increase in prices : a universal boycott is even less con¬
ceivable than a General Strike. In the main, therefore,
the industrial war becomes one between masters and
men, both combined, over the division of the product
of industry. And, at present, the masters seem to have
the advantage in organisation. The Employers’ Federa¬
tion, with infinite resources behind it, fights the Trade
Union or Federation of Trade Unions, and round the
contest the whole social problem is centred.

Between these two, the main question is one of
wages. The worker tries to make his wages increase
faster than prices rise ; the master tries to guard
himself from competition by resisting the demands
of the workers. And in the midst of their contests,
the State is alarmed by the cry that the rich are
growing richer and the poor poorer, and that the
purchasing power of the workers is not increasing
as rapidly as the national wealth. This clearly is

MEANS AND ENDS

7

the point of view from which the social problem is
customarily regarded, and we can safely prophesy
that when nationalisation comes, as come it must, in
one or other of our great industries, it will come mainly
as the result of the deadlocks and bickerings with
which we are familiar in industrial life. Even for
most adherents of Labour, this has been almost the
whole. They have looked forward to an impartial
State, controlling and organising industry, securing
for the worker an adequate share in the wealth he
produces, laying charges on industry for benevolent
State services for the benefit of the weak and in¬
capable, probably competing with similar States m
the world-market, and in other respects carrying
on production much as it is carried on now, with a
State Department in place of a Trust and a bureaucrat
in place of a managing director.

Collectivism then has been mainly a theory oi
distribution : like the Co-operative Wholesale Society,
it has looked on production from the consumer’s point
of view and has envisaged a grand national organisa¬
tion of consumers, the State, employing workers
iust as the Co-operative Wholesale and the Munici¬
palities now employ workers m production. Syn id¬
ealism, on the other hand, is a very ill-thought-out
and vague assertion of the producer’s point of view.
Syndicalism claims for the worker not merely hig er
wages but also something which it terms geneially
the ‘ control of industry ’. It demands that men be
regarded not as ‘citizens’ or ‘consumers but as
• producers ’, that their work be recognised as the
central fact of their lives, and that industry be re¬
organised in their interest rather than in that
consumer. These are no doubt extravagant claim ,
but if they are to be granted any validity, they w

8

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

involve at least a re-examination of the Collectivist
theory. . Mr. Sidney Webb, the arch-Collectivist, was
lstmgmshed all along by his insistence that, even in
a Socialist State, strong Trade Unions would be a
necessity While he was doing more than any other
man to build up the Labour Party, he was, in his
wn mgs, insisting on the paramount importance of
rade Umon action. But, unfortunately, this part
of his doctrine found less expression in Fabian propa¬
ganda, and even he seemed, till only the other day
to have forgotten much of the best of his earlier
teachmg. f he Labour Party, the child of Fabianism
has been too ready to regard the Trade Unions as a
mere electioneering device for making the working-
classes seem more Collectivist than they are.

. But vJithjn Trade Unionism itself, there have been
s.gns of the half-conscious awakening of the new
spmt. Wages are still the central question of Lpnte
th employers; but along with wage-disputes
there have been growing up more and more disputed
about conditions of labour, and about what the

hZaTon ofl1 'dlSdpline/ Workshop conditions,
Ze In ■ “d *he non-untonist question

uture n n r “ ImP°rtance ‘ill they threaten in
future to dwarf wages as the cause of disputes Ex-

confidencif bargai"iug has given the Unions

tinuahv to kT®' a"d the ‘“dency is con-

nually to extend the sphere of such bargaining.

It is being realised that the method of collective

bargaining can be applied, not only to wages and hours

»o ktsUIeLPOmt °f dl<ierenCe *hat ™ in the
wo kshop between employers and employed. Not

only can it safeguard the standard of living for the

"SfiVeiy : d Ca" aIS° be USed for tha redress
individual grievances. Moreover, it can be used as

MEANS AND ENDS

9

a means of getting a share in the actual control of
management. Discussion of wages inevitably leads
on to discussion of management, and the right to
discuss can be turned into the right to interfere. In
the recent unrest the workers are demanding the
extension of their industrial jurisdiction to cover new
fields. Autocracy in the workshop is already breaking
down, and this, together with the great increase in
disputes over the non-unionist question, seems to lend
plausibility to the Syndicalist ideal.

There is clearly much in this new attitude which
represents a return to the older Socialism of men like
Robert Owen and the Christian Socialists, or again
to the teaching of Ruskin and Morris. William
Morris, with his demand that everything made should
be “ a joy to the maker and the user”, was only
putting in an idealised form, the demand which
Labour is beginning to make on society of its own
accord. With his thoughts fixed on the skilled crafts,
Morris was led to put this demand in a form that
is, within a measurable space of time at least, un-
realisable. But his ideal is grand enough to be worth
a moment’s investigation. Pleasure, joy, interest,
expression in the works of a man’s hand, taken from
the worker by Capitalistic Production and the In¬
dustrial Revolution, are what Ruskin and Morris
desired to restore to the world. There is a great
difference between the common-sense ideal of high
wages, and the other ideal of enabling men somehow
to express, in the daily work of their hands, some
part of that infinitely subtle and various personality
which lives in each one of them, if we can but call it
out, a birthright which not even Capitalism has done
away with, though it has often maimed and perverted
men’s whole lives and works.

10

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

But here generally comes a blank negative. The
Industrial Revolution, whether we regard it as the
greatest of calamities or as the greatest of man’s
victories over nature, is a fact which cannot be gain¬
said, and Collectivism does seem at least to be able to
make its incidence less unjust and burdensome. The
project of restoring man’s joy in labour too often ends
in baseless aspirations, in false mediaevalism and im¬
possible regrets of the advent of machinery. We
cannot, if we would, set back the hands of the clock ;
we cannot dispense with the so-called superfluities of
civilisation ; we cannot take any step to increase the
quality of what we produce, if in doing so we are
actually decreasing the quantity. There is no hope
in solutions of the social problem which end in a
false sestheticism, as they began in a false reading of
history. Even if machinery is ultimately to be driven
from the more skilled crafts, there must, as Morris
himself said, be more machinery before there can be
less. It is no use, when we are working for the future,
to be for ever lamenting the past ; facts are facts, and
it is on facts that we have to build.

The great industry, then, has to be accepted as
inevitable : the Middle Ages have gone past wishing
for, and if the producer is to have pleasure in his work,
the pleasure cannot in most cases be that of the in¬
dividual craftsman working in his own home or
workshop at something which shall be entirely the
work of his own hands. The factory has come to
stay, and the machine has come to stay. Are we
then to say that it is better to abandon the hopeless
task of giving men pleasure in their work, and con¬
centrate instead on giving them adequate wages ?
Is the ‘ Leisure State ’, rathet than the ‘ Work State ’,
what we ought to aim at ? \ It is part at least of the

MEANS AND ENDS

ii

service of Syndicalism to have corrected an am¬
biguity in this question. In demanding the control
of industry for the worker, the Syndicalist has not as
a rule demanded an impossible return to out-of-date
methods of production. He has asked liberty for the
worker to determine the conditions of his labour,
without stating any intention of destroying machine-
production.^/ There is, in fact, no reason why the
workers should not control a modern factory as well as
a mediaeval workshop. Under modern conditions the
producer may still be taken into account as a pro¬
ducer, and the social problem may still be more than
a question of distributing incomes. It is only possible
to deny this offhand by asserting that the conditions
of efficient industry must be so revolting that no
body of men will voluntarily accept them ; but to
maintain this is openly and unashamedly to advocate
the Servile State. For the world of Labour, the
problem of the control of industry lies within a sphere
in which modern conditions of production are a ^umed.

It is evident that such a view emphasises the central
importance of Trade Unionism to the Labour move¬
ment. Regarded merely as the instruments of
collective wage-bargaining, the Unions are the most
powerful weapon in the hands of Labour ; if they
are in addition the germs of the future organisation
of industry as a whole, their importance becomes
at once immeasurably greater. It will therefore be
the main business of this book to study the achieve¬
ments and possibilities of Trade Unionism both in
itself and in its relation to other working-class move¬
ments, and* to draw what conclusions are possible
with regard both to the policy to be pursued here
and now, and to the remoter future. It is at least
indisputable that if the worker can in any way control

12 THE WORLD OF LABOUR

industry, it will be through his Trade Union alone,
and not by the development of new ‘ Guilds ’ outside
them, modelled, probably wrongly, on what is sup¬
posed to have been the organisation of industry in
the Middle Ages.

There is no doubt, for many people, an extraordinary
fascination in the proposals of such a book as
Kropotkin’s Fields, Factories and Workshops. This
appeal for the. ‘ redintegration ’ of industry catches
us all, as Morris caught us, in a weak place, and we
are willing to give it any amount of sentimental
sympathy. That, in the skilled crafts at least, there
will be some such return is certain : as the standard
of taste improves and the standard of living goes up,
there will be a demand that at least such personal
possessions as furniture and clothing shall be well
and artistically made, and, with the development of
electrical power, it will become easier to restore the
integrity of such smaller crafts. But whether such
a restoration is possible, or even desirable, over the
whole of industry is quite another question. In
the great factory at any rate, to say nothing of all
the workers engaged in distribution, large-scale
production will continue, and the release of the
worker will come only by a gradual improvement
m working conditions. Employers are even now
beginning to find out that, in some trades at any rate,
high wages pay, and they will come to find that it
pays to devolve a great measure of workshop con-
tiol on the employee.1 Workshop committees and

1 There are indications that such a devolution is beginning

E7 Cadbur> 3 recently published Experiments in
Industrial Organisation. * Shop ’ piece-work (i.e. paying the

whole workshop for all it produces) is a beginning. See how
ever, p. 324. ° ' w

MEANS AND ENDS

13

pleasant working conditions will gradually become
the rule in industry, and, as factories move out of
the towns, there will be realised some approximation
to what William Morris called, in the best of his tracts,
‘ A Factory as it might be And, when matters
have got so far, the Trade Unions will certainly have
a strong case for demanding that they shall go further.

Agriculture has been omitted altogether from this
book, because it offers so many special problems for
solution that it cannot be treated merely incidentally ;
but we may say a word about it here, where we are
dealing with Prince Kropotkin’s proposals. What¬
ever we may think of the possibility of ‘ redintegration ’
in the factory, the case for it in agriculture is clearly
made out. The new agricultural co-operation in
Ireland and elsewhere is quietly creating in the fields
the conditions that it will take long and patient
endeavour to realise in the factory and the workshop.

For Collectivism and the Labour Party, we have
seen, the central problem is one of wages ; Syndicalism
demands the control of industry. It would seem
that on either showing the Trade Unions must be of
primary importance ; for in both cases the natural
method seems to be that of Collective Bargaining.
If it is no use to nationalise industry without obtaining
real control over it, it is of equally little use for the
workers to control industry without getting more
out of it. The methods seem to presuppose each
other, and equally to presuppose the Trade Unions.
If industry is to be nationalised, only strong Trade
Unions can prevent bureaucracy, which it is fashion¬
able to call the Servile State ; if industry is to be
syndicalised, only strong Trade Unions will be capable
of running it. On either showing, Trade Unionism
should be the first concern of Labour.

14

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

Mr. G. K. Chesterton once wrote, in the Illustrated
London Neivs, that nowadays we were getting all the
disadvantages of Socialism without any of its
advantages, the interference without the control,
the servility without the comfort. Either, he urged,
the State must stop interfering, or else it must go
the whole way and really undertake management.
It is now some years since those words were written,
and everything that has happened since has gone to
show on the one hand that the State is not at present
good at running industry, and on the other that,
even under the most old-fashioned of Whig Premiers,
it cannot help interfering with industry more and
more. The State is in the dilemma of fearing to
nationalise, because it mistrusts its own capacity,
and yet of being wholly unable to interfere successfully
without nationalising, as well as utterly impotent
to refrain from interference. Syndicalism and Labour
Unrest are the result as well as the cause of this
dilemma. The State that cannot save itself is not
likely at present to save the worker, who is therefore
driven back upon himself, and forced to find his
salvation in the development of his own institutions.
Strong and intelligent Trade Unions are the condition
of an effective Labour Party in Parliament, just as
surely as they are the condition of good wage¬
bargaining with the employers.

The Anti-Socialists of all times, from Herbert
Spencer to Mr. Hilaire Belloc, have seen in Socialism
the instrument for turning the nation of shop-keepers
into a nation of shop-assistants. And it is clear that
State Socialism alone can do nothing to prevent this.
Neither popular control from without nor democratic
control from within is a distinguishing feature of
the existing Government Departments. In the

MEANS AND ENDS

15

industry of the future, we clearly need both forms
of control, and' both can be secured only by methods
that are mainly educational. First, there is the
method of educating the workers through their Trade
Unions, and on the industrial field. Every strike,
every demand made by the Unions, is a contribution
to the education of the worker, as well as an attack
on the capitalist system. Secondly, there is education
by means of the Parliamentary Labour Party, which
tends more and more to attempt to justify its existence
at present rather as an educational institution than
as an actual means of expropriation. Here the
Labour Party has at least one weakness in com¬
parison with the Trade Unions. Trade Unions do
win victories, and such victories have a great effect
on their membership — the Dock Strike of 1911 is a
notable instance. But, broadly speaking, the Labour
Party does not win victories. It depends for its
appeal on promises to be redeemed when it is in a
majority ; and to anyone who knows its prospects,
such promises are so many cheques postdated to
the Greek Calends. The present Labour Party can
never become a majority and would be sadly at a
loss to know what to do if it did become one. It is
therefore difficult for it to make any but an obscurantist
appeal except to the already converted ; and an
obscurantist appeal is hardly likely to be educative
in its influence. The Labour Party reflects Trade
Unionism and cannot surpass it.

But in industrial questions the plight of Liberalism
is no better. The social legislation of the Liberal
Government, whether it was ever meant to raise
wages or not, has not done so, except in the solitary
instance of the Trade Boards Act. For the average
worker, whatever its power to alleviate sweating,

i6

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

Liberal legislation has no message. Social Insurance,
which is there to maintain the reserve of labour for
industry, leaves employer and employed just as they
were, to determine, by trial of force, which shall in
the end pay the piper. Here again the effect on the
worker depends on the strength of his Trade Union.
The vState provides the machinery ; if the worker is
weak, he will pay for it : if he is strong, he will make
his masters pay. On every hand then we are driven
back on the belief that the hope of the worker lies in
Trade Unionism, and that as the Unions are strong
or weak, Labour will expropriate or itself be spoliated.1

Trade Unionism, then, is the most powerful weapon
in the workers’ hands and, for that very reason, the
greatest educational influence at their command.
But Trade Unionism itself demands of its members
a certain standard of intelligence, and requires, for
effective working, a large proportion of members
with a keen understanding of the situation in which
they are placed. There is therefore a very real place
in the Labour movement for education in a more
restricted sense, for the great movement of working-
class education whose beginnings we are watching
at the present day. Indeed, there are some who go
so far as to place all hope of a change for the better
in the new educational movement. In his inspiring
book, What is and what might be, Mr. Edmond Holmes
presented a survey of the actual and the possible in
Elementary Education, and offered, by way of intro¬
duction, some general remarks on the place of educa-

1 Even if prices are raised to cover the increased wages bill,
Labour makes some gain ; for prices are spread over the whole
community and wages over only a section. This favours
organised against unorganised Labour, and for sweated trades
the State must step in.

MEANS AND ENDS

17

tion in national regeneration. Briefly, he takes the
view that it is impossible, by means of legislation, to
bring about any approach to a state of society to which
the motto ‘ Each for all and all for each ’ will have any
application. With this ideal of the Socialists, he tells
us, he has the deepest sympathy; “but”, he goes
on, “ in trying to compass their ends by legislation,
before the standard of reality has been changed, they
are making a disastrous mistake”. Our schools are,
as he puts it, “ hotbeds of individualism ”, and he holds
that Socialism without a spiritual revolution would be
the worst condition into which society could fall.
Even if we cannot fully agree with Mr. Holmes, we can
no longer have the confidence that a mere change in
the machinery of the State will of itself carry spiritual
regeneration. We have learnt that Collectivism and
Trade Unionism have both their business aspect, and
that either State Socialism or Syndicalism might be
brought about by the tyranny of a majority, or even
a minority, without any realisation of the General Will.
Even if education is not everything, it is at least a very
great deal.

No doubt much of this education in a wider outlook
is obtained by the workers through their political
societies and their Trade Unions. We have already
insisted on the educational value of Trade Unionism,
and there is no need to draw back here. But that
there is need for a wider culture, for something which
is not in any way measurable in pounds, shillings and
pence, not even the most ardent advocate of the
economic interpretation of history need be at pains
to deny. Such a movement is just coming into exist¬
ence : the Workers’ Educational Association is gradu¬
ally spreading over the country, and offering to adult
workers the chance of real education which has always

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

18

been withheld from them in the past. It is a society
aiming at bringing within the reach of all who desire
them tutorial classes and lectures on any branch of
higher education which the students themselves may
select. It has now over a hundred regular Tutorial
Classes, mainly in industrial centres, with over three
thousand students pledged to a three years’ course.
Over thirty-five thousand men and women of the
working-classes, it is estimated, were reached by its
lectures in the course of the past year. For seven years
there have been Summer Schools in Oxford, where the
students have met one another and come into contact
with good tutors on their various subjects, and had
in addition a very enjoyable time. The importance of
this movement is that it does not and cannot have the
result of lifting men and women out of their class :
this was a fault often legitimately found with earlier
efforts at working-class education — for where a man
is asked to give up his whole time to the business of
being educated, he is inevitably removed from his
work and his class — but to the W.E.A. such a
complaint has no application. Students are not
asked to leave their work and seek education ; educa¬
tion is brought to them, and they are asked to select
their own subjects. Naturally industrial history and
economics are the most often chosen, as well as the
easiest to teach such students ; but general history is
also on the increase, and a great variety of other
subjects occurs.

That this movement is gradually having its effect,
and that this effect will be progressive, cannot be
doubted. It is growing, and men do not come out of
the classes just as they went in. Little groups of
intelligent and informed workers are springing up all
over the country ; it is not that the W.E.A. is dis-

MEANS AND ENDS

19

covering a few geniuses, but that the average of
intelligence is high. These groups will in the future
prove as powerful a leaven as the first Trade Unionists,
or the groups of enthusiasts who followed the lead
of the Rochdale Pioneers. The problem of education
will thus begin to solve itself, and the awakening will
come mainly not by Act of Parliament (though Parlia¬
ment can help with money and encouragement), but
by the spontaneous act of the workers themselves.
Only by such growth can a truly popular education
arise.

Everywhere, in fact, we are faced by the uprising
of the group. Everywhere we have before us a new
group -psychology, group- ideal, and group -action.
Here it is in the Trade Union, there in the Co-operative
Society, here again in the new educational grouping ;
but everywhere we are witnessing the creation of
new individualities within the State. All over Europe
the situation is the same : the last estate is realising
that, in the words of Marx, “ its liberation must be
its own act ” , and that it can find power to act only
by the creation of its own institutions, its own cor¬
porate individualities. The group-principle, it is
being seen, is the true principle of working-class
solidarity, and is alone able to substitute, for the
disorderly discontent and unrest of the mass or mob,
the organised protest and formulated demand that
are essential to all movements that Society need recog¬
nise. As a French Syndicalist has said, “ Democracy ”,
the bare ballot-box democracy <of the great State,
“ mixes the classes ” : it confuses all ideas and
aspirations in one great mass, in which all coherence
and cogency are lost ; it can grasp only the shadow
while the substance eludes it, only the mechanism
whose informing spirit it cannot hold.

20

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

It is the struggle of reaction against this new power
that we are now witnessing everywhere, but especially
in the industrial field. For the new ideas have come
most forcibly to the front in the case of Trade Union¬
ism, with which all the supporters of things as they are
have recently been waging open or secret warfare.
All the denunciations of the ‘ tyranny of Trade
Unions all the Taff Vale decisions and ‘ Osborne ’
judgments, of which we in this country have heard
so much, find their parallels on the Continent, and are
only the outward and visible signs of the determination
of the old order to resist the new by every means in its
power. The workers in their natural groups are
asserting a new right ; and as this right is seen to be
fatal to the established codes of law and * Manchester
School ’ equity, there is no want of fighters to die in
the last ditch for a cause that is already past saving.
The repeal of the Combination Acts was already the
first breach in the wall : the Trade Union Act of 1876
placed the Unions in a position strong enough to be
safe from every danger, however exposed to petty
judicial annoyances. The State has conceded the
right to combine, and when that is granted, in the end,
everything follows. The workers have “ nothing to
lose but their chains, and a world to win ” ; and,
finally, they cannot help winning it.

From this new fact of social structure must come
a reconstruction of political and social theory. We
have long been accustomed to hearing, as much from
Socialist and Labour theorists as from any other
school, that Society is an organism and possesses a
life-principle and will of its own, transcending the
will of all the individuals composing it. On this
question probably Mr. Balfour and Mr. Ramsay
Macdonald would be found in perfect accord : both

MEANS AND ENDS

21

would agree that Society is an indivisible whole and
possesses a common life. I fear that both would agree
further that it must follow from this fact that the
organisation of a class is in itself anti-social, in that it
breaks up the Commonwealth, which is one, into
unreal divisions on a basis of self-interest. The class-
struggle is in fact said to be anti-social, to be merely
the selfishness of one man writ large in the group,
incapable alike of idealism and of self-devotion. A
political party is supposed on this showing to have the
advantage over a class that it organises upon an
intellectual basis of belief and not upon an appetitive
basis of self-assertion. But it should be observed that
such an argument only holds good in a Society which
is itself without classes. The class-struggle is preached,
not on the ground that it is desirable, but on the
ground that it is a monstrous and irrefutable fact.
The class-structure is established in our social institu¬
tions, and it is only by means of the class-struggle that
we can escape from it. The argument against the class-
struggle presupposes that both classes are equally in the
right, or that there is actually no such thing as right.

What then, since the class-struggle is to be accepted
as an awful fact of social structure, is the relation
between the class and the group ? To possess any sort
of unity or individuality, the group must have some
common interest and aim, capable of binding its mem¬
bers together. It must be striving to realise something
which is of importance, collectively and individually,
to all its members, or else it will possess neither stability
nor value. Such a bond may be found, in different
times and places, in the most various spheres of human
activity. Its unity may be religious, as in a Church ;
or political (in the narrower sense in which the word
is applied to State institutions) as in Chartism; or

22

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

educational, as in a University ; or again industrial
and economic, as in a Trade Union. It may be either
material or spiritual (it is more often both), self-
seeking or altruistic, instinctive or rational, blind or
intelligent. It may, in short, have any of the attri¬
butes of human will, from which it differs, for the
present purpose, only in being social instead of indi¬
vidual. The group therefore, or the class organised as
a group, whose aim is in the main self-seeking, can
only be condemned where an individual would be
condemned for seeking his own advantage ; that is,
where the advantage sought is in itself unjust. Every
group that is articulate with a common aim and a
common demand has a claim to be heard just as cogent
as the claim of the individual citizen. It is the right
of such groups, called in France the new ‘ droit prole-
tarien ’, that the philosophy of Syndicalism (which
is after all in origin only the French name for Trade
Unionism) has arisen to assert. In this it is not too
much to say that we have the germ of the political
philosophy of the future.

It is the aim of the chapters that follow to present
a study of one side of this new development. In
making the attempt, we shall be in the true line of
evolution alike of the facts of history and of the theory
of politics. The direct contribution of the French
Revolution to political institutions was no doubt a
legalisation of laissez-faire individualism, the denial of
all particular associations within the State ; but it is
not difficult to show that this denial was an accidental
result of historical environment rather than a correct
interpretation of revolutionary theory. The Loi le
Chapelier of 1791 abolished all particular associations,
not because all associations had been shown to be
wrong, but because the associations which then existed

MEANS AND ENDS

23

in France, from the compagnonnages to Marat’s revolu¬
tionary clubs, were dangers to the prosperity and
safety of the State. The gradual restoration of par¬
ticular associations during the nineteenth century was
not only an answer to the logic of facts, but also a direct
fulfilment of true revolutionary principles. The case
of Rousseau is generally quoted in opposition to this
view, and reference is freely made to his pronounce¬
ment in the Social Contract. It is worth while to look
at the actual passage —

“ It is therefore of importance, if the General Will
is to find expression, that there should be no particular
society within the State, and that every citizen should
express opinions only in accordance with it. ... If
there are particular associations, they should be as
numerous and as equal as possible ” ( Social Contract,
Book II., ch. iii. ).

It must be remembered, first, that Rousseau is
thinking of his ideal State, the small city community ;
and secondly, that he is considering a State free from
inequality between individual and individual. Where
there is such inequality, a substitute can be found only
by getting the weak to combine : where the State is
large, Rousseau himself holds that the General Will is
lost, and it is only a step from this to the endeavour
to recreate it by means of particular wills balanced as
evenly as possible. In recognising that where there
must be particular associations, they should be evenly
matched, Rousseau admits the group-principle to be
inevitable in the great State. We may then legiti¬
mately regard the new philosophy of groups as carry¬
ing on the true egalitarian principles of the French
Revolution.

The particular phase and aspect of this evolution
which we are about to study is but a part of the greater

24

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

movement. In the world of Labour, as in Society as a
whole, there are abroad two great principles, the spirit
of solidarity and the spirit of devolution. The problem
of democratic government is not being worked out
merely in the vexed questions of our Parliamentary
institutions, Home Rule all round, devolution of
Parliamentary procedure by means of committees, de¬
centralisation and popular control in Government
Departments and the like ; it is arising with equal
insistence within the Trade Unions themselves, as a
battle of officialdom against the rank and file, the
branch or craft against the Union, the Trade Union
against the Industrial Union or the Federation. And
in this sphere it is peculiarly instructive, because here
at least the democracy is being given some chance to
solve its problems for itself and in its own way. With
the exception of the Co-operative movement, which has
had no such important difficulties to face, Trade
Unionism is the first instance of a democracy really
governing itself and dictating its own methods of
government. For the first time, the three powers,
legislative, executive and judicial, are effectively united
in the same hands.

There is then at least this much justification for the
Syndicalist attitude which sees in the Trade Unions the
germ of the whole future organisation of society. The
only true democracies of the present might well, it
may seem, go to constitute the State of to-morrow.
Cannot the Unions, the Syndicalist asks, so build upon
the foundations they have laid as to be able in the end
to supplant the capitalist State and all its works, take
over not merely the running of industry but the whole
of Society, and be themselves the State of the future ?
Stress has been laid in this opening chapter mainly
upon the merits of Syndicalism, because we have been

MEANS AND ENDS

25

speaking of positive ideas, and, like all popular move¬
ments, Syndicalism is strong in what it asserts and
weak in what it denies. Its weaknesses there will be
ample opportunity to observe later, as its particular
claims are discussed : the general weakness of its
denial need alone be insisted upon here. Syndicalists
are never tired of telling us that the strength of Syndi¬
calism lies in taking man as a producer, at his daily
work, as the victim of capitalist exploitation and the
industrial system : but this claim carries along with
itself its own limitation. It is a demand that the
worker shall control the conditions of his own industry,
or it is nothing. It is proud for the present to claim
that it associates men, outside all political parties and
religious sects, in the industrial sphere ; but if this is
so, it can claim no competence beyond the domain of
industry. No doubt its weakness is that of the econo¬
mic reading of history ; the worker has become under
Capitalism so much a worker and so little anything
else ; and industrial questions have come to absorb
so much of his energies, that he can hardly regard
himself as concerned with the State or Society in any
save industrial relations.1 The State has become for
him an external power that may or may not intervene
in his industrial disputes, and which he always expects
to interfere or refrain at the wrong moment : for
the worker, the State has come to represent merely
a ‘ justice ’ which either holds its hand or miscarries.
It has done so little either to give him control over his
life or to raise his standard of living that he must be
pardoned if he cannot concede to it functions which
are in no sense industrial, if his perception of the true

1 It would be difficult to overestimate the stimulus given to
this attitude by the predominant place taken by the Tariff
controversy in modern party politics.

26

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

sphere of politics — all too seldom the sphere with which
the Houses of Parliament busy themselves — is dulled,
and if, in his preoccupation with the concerns of his
daily life, he fails to see that, outside all industrial
questions, there is a sphere for the State in which, by
great educational reforms, and by promoting and
stimulating by every means in its power the finer
expressions of the national life, it may remain in reality
the first expression of the national will and the deposi¬
tory of the national greatness. Syndicalism is ready
to deny all this because it has its eye on the man at his
work, because it rightly regards the fact that he is a
producer as the most important thing about him, and
because, in so doing, it has not been content to assert
the truths it has grasped, but has gone on to deny those
which lie beyond its reach.

Syndicalism in the form of which we have just
spoken will not become important in this country.
It is in France, the home of ideas done to death,
but always the home of ideas, that this point of view
has made real headway. The different temper of
English Trade Unionism was seen only last year 1 at
the Annual Congress, which rejected the topic of
Secular Education and for the future refused it a
place on its agenda. If Trade Unionism is to fit
itself for the control of industry, it must stick to
its last, and, if it is to meddle with politics at all,
it must create for that purpose a special organ with
a separate existence. -The control of industry may
be the future destiny of the Trade Unions ; the
direct control of the whole national life is most em¬
phatically not for them. A purely economic theory
must neglect all sorts of things that are of the greatest
importance in the national life ; ' but it must do more
than that : it must neglect nationality also. Mr.

1 1912.

MEANS AND ENDS

27

Fabian Ware’s recent book,1 which was in many
respects an eloquent appreciation of Syndicalist
ideals, was at pains to point out this error. For
industry, for the economic man, nationality is unim¬
portant : capital is organised internationally, and
Trade Unions are gradually building up an inter¬
national solidarity. There is consequently a frequent
assertion that nationality does not matter : “ the

country of the worker is his belly ”, says one French
Syndicalist leader. But however little nationality
may matter economically, it still enormously matters
morally, socially and politically. The very ease
with which the international solidarity of Labour can
be swept away by the faintest breath of a war-scare
is an illustration of this fact. Nationality can only
cease to affect a man sentimentally in the moment
when it is not affecting him practically ; let his
country be threatened, and capitalist exploitation
becomes in an instant of secondary importance.
Nationality is still the strongest bond which can join
men together, and so long as it retains its strength,
there will remain a great and fruitful province for
the national State. Syndicalism can only deny
patriotism by representing industry as the whole of
life ; but, however oppressive its conditions may
be, however urgently the exploitation of labour may
demand revolution, industry can never be the whole
social problem. It is the greatest question of the
day, but it is not the only question.

It will be the aim of this book to take the social
problem at its most urgent, and the theory of Syndi¬
calism at its strongest point, and to endeavour to
follow out, as clearly as possible, the forces that are
going to the making, out of the mere fighting organisa-
1 The Worker and his Country.

28

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

tion of the Trade Unions, of something that has a
claim to more than sympathy with its uphill fight.
We shall be examining Trade Unionism in the light
of the theory we have outlined, seeking in it the
realisation of the new group-personality which is the
central fact of modern society. We shall do this in
the belief that the Trade Unions are tending to
establish a sovereignty of their own, limited no doubt
in its sphere, but real and absolute within its proper
competence. For this new sovereignty we can find
no other name than Economic Federalism, a gradual
grouping of Unions into a single great Federation of
Industry. The methods of realising this organisation
and the manner of its action we shall be investigating
throughout : it is important here merely to state a
general intention, the purpose which is behind the
writing of this book. The State must be set free
from the impossible task of regulating all the details
of industry ; it must be liberated for the work that
is worthy of the national dignity, and it must leave
to those who alone are competent to deal with them,
the particular tasks of industrial organisation and
management. Devolution is the order of the day,
and we must have devolution, not merely by localities,
but also by purposes. Even if the State cannot be
wholly detached from industry, the problem is to
free it as far as possible, and not, as some people
seem to think, to concentrate all possible tasks in
its hands. No doubt the ultimate power must reside
in the democratic State ; but it does not at all follow
that the State should do all the work. It should
allot tasks to the members of the national family,
and not do all the work by means of hired servants.
Responsibility is the best teacher of self-reliance :
self-government in the Trade Union has done wonders

MEANS AND ENDS

29

for the workers, and the Co-operative Societies have
taught democracy many useful lessons. But with
the gradual extension of Trade Union competence
to cover more and more of the industrial field, the
lessons it will be able to afford will be of infinitely
greater value. In controlling industry, democracy
will learn the hard lesson of self-control and the
harder lesson of controlling its rulers, and, in so
doing, it will become actual instead of nominal.
With such institutions, we may hope to improve
upon Rousseau’s ideal, and even in the great State,
to secure the realisation, in large measure, of that
elusive but fundamental reality which he named the
General Will.

CHAPTER II

THE LABOUR UNREST

‘ Unrest ’ is, as we have said, a vague term. It
denotes in the first place a consciousness that all is
not as it should be, and a dissatisfaction with present
conditions ; but it does not point to the possession
of a panacea, to a widespread knowledge among the
workers of what is necessary to remedy their griev¬
ances. Pure unrest is grievance without argument,
dissatisfaction with the present without an ideal for
the future. But though the very use of the word
points to an absence of formulation and under¬
standing by the worker of what he really wants,
unrest could in fact find no possible outlet unless
it in some measure materialised itself and asserted
definite demands allowing of acceptance or refusal.
The unrest therefore found determinate expression
in the recent series of strikes, and will continue, as
long as it remains, to find similar expression. In
the strike a definite claim is made ; and though
there may be, behind the particular demand, a wider
ideal and even a whole theory of social revolution,
it is not necessary, for the purpose in hand, that
this ideal background should be at all generally
recognised. Every Labour movement will always
have these two aspects : it will be at once a present
claim for better conditions, and, in the minds of

3»

THE LABOUR UNREST

3i

some at least of its advocates, an inroad on the present
constitution of Society and an advance in the direction
of social reconstruction.

Clearly these two demands, the ideal and the
immediate, may both be formulated in either of two
ways. The one is Socialism, in the widest sense of
the word : the other is Social Reform, in so far as
it is a real modification of the society of the present.
Both of these spirits, singly or together, may appear
either in the industrial or in the political field. The
Parliamentary Labour Party may be regarded as
an ameliorative influence, a means of getting certain
reforms out of Parliament ; or, again, the Labour
Party or an independent Socialist Party may be
looked upon as the expression of the ideal aspirations
of the workers, as the means of overthrowing capital¬
istic Society as a whole. Of course, the view usually
and reasonably taken is a combination of these two
views : neither revolutionism nor reformism is found
in all its purity ; but, broadly, these two conceptions
of the function of Labour in Parliament stand in
perpetual opposition. On the other hand, there has
long been in France, and there is rapidly growing up
in this country, a similar cleavage of opinion within
the Trade Union movement itself. The older Unionism
was purely an instrument of collective bargaining
and mutual insurance, aiming at the realisation of
‘ a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work ’ by pro¬
gressive modifications of present conditions : but in
face of this, there is now abroad in the Trade Unions
a new spirit, whose motto is ‘ the abolition of the
wage system ’, aiming at a Trade Union revolution
and the reconstruction of society to some extent on
an industrial basis. Within the Labour movement,
Syndicalism, in the widest sense, and the old Unionism

32

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

confront each other in the industrial field just as
Social Democracy and Labourism are opposed in
the sphere of politics.

We have seen that, when the Labour Party got into
politics, it soon became to the last degree Reformist.
It was found impossible, even apart from the actual
‘ moderate ’ composition of the Labour Party, to
continue for ever “ holding up the torch of the ideal ”
in face of the perpetual detail of Parliamentary pro¬
cedure. But whereas, with a party more thoroughly
imbued with idealism, it might have been possible to
secure at once practicality and attention to detail
and a really idealistic point of view, the narrow vision
of the majority of Labour members easily adapted
itself to the Parliamentary situation, and the Parlia¬
mentary Labour movement ceased to fulfil the ideal
needs of Labour, which was compelled, in pursuit of
its wider conception of social reconstruction, to turn
back once more to the Trade Union movement, and
endeavour to find in it that very idealism the absence
of which had previously done much to call the Parlia¬
mentary Party into being. Opportunely, as men’s
thoughts were swinging back to industrial action,
Syndicalism appeared to give the movement a philo¬
sophic sanctiori. The philosophy of Syndicalism had
been practically full-grown in France ever since 1902 ;
it took so long in making the Channel passage, because
only when the Labour Party had had its fling was the
moment ripe for its appearance. Syndicalism, then,
took the restless, the discontented and the extremist
for the moment by storm. It in no sense caused the
industrial reaction ; but it lent it, through a minority,
force and diFection. Few accepted it as a whole ; but
for one who was ready to take it at its face value, there
were thousands, including even its bitterest opponents,

THE LABOUR UNREST

33

who were influenced by it, and found in it to some
extent a sanction for the direction in which their

It is therefore often convenient to use the name
Syndicalism loosely, to cover with it a wider problem
than exact phrasing would warrant, and to assemble
under its banner, because of a real resemblance, many
leaders and movements that would indignantly repudi¬
ate the imputation. ,^Of real Syndicalism there is in
England practically none N of an impulse which, unless
we consent to the inaccuracy, we must leave nameless,
there is a great deal, and it is so important to emphasise
the unity that we do not for a moment boggle at the
perversion. The labour unrest is real ; that will be
generally granted. But, over and above its reality,
it is more than an inarticulate impulse : it possesses
direction and determinateness, and this direction is
Syndicalistic much in the same sense as the Minority
Report was Socialistic. There is a unity to be dis¬
entangled, if we do not exact too great definiteness or
too much self-consciousness.

What, then, are the causes of Labour Unrest ? The
one cause that is real and fundamental is under¬
payment, or exploitation. The feeling that “ all
labour is robbed ” is by this time pretty general even
among the classes which such a discovery by no means
persuades to give up the proceeds or even to desist
from the process. The “ ninepence for fourpence ”
of the Insurance Act and the still more specious ‘ 5 per
cent, for nothing on wages ’ of co-partnership are a clear
sign of the growth of this consciousness, even if it were
not apparent in the increase of what Mr. Webb trust¬
fully calls “social compunction”. This, the one
permanent basis of discontent, is what at bottom
justifies all revolution, and makes all strikes, however

3

34

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

wrong in their particular circumstances, ultimately
right and defensible. This is the continual back¬
ground of all unrest, the wavering but undying aspira¬
tion of the dispossessed to recover their lost birthright,
and to enter once more into possession of the earth.
The abiding discomfort, which is for many destitution,
and for the majority poverty, is the one great cause of
the insurgence of democracy — a cause that is too
often neglected, just because it is always present. The
poverty that we have with us always morally justifies
every revolution, though it proves no particular up¬
rising to be wise or well-directed.

For the thinker and the revolutionary, as for the
real Tory, this will stand out as the really significant
cause. The economist, the social reformer, and the
befogged and ignorant general public, however, will
demand information about the occasional causes ; they
will always want to know how the rotten structure is
to be patched up, how this or that outbreak is to be
calmed, and how this or that aspiration can be satisfied
without real surrender, or side-tracked without detec¬
tion. For if there can be a greater dishonesty in en¬
visaging the problem, a greater refusal to face the facts,
than that which the aspiring politician has to learn,
it is assuredly to be found in the narrowness, egoism,
and intellectual indolence that characterise the great
British public. If the industrial revolution has turned
the worker into a mere producing-machine, it has quite
equally turned the public into a mass of mere con¬
sumers, with consciences always in their pockets and
brains nowhere — or directed to anything rather than
the social question. In this country, at least, it is
useless to invoke public opinion, because it is selfish,
unenlightened and vindictive.

We need not, however, dispute that it is of great

THE LABOUR UNREST

35

importance to get clear about occasional and temporary
causes, so long as the permanent and fundamental
cause is kept always in sight. We know why, ulti¬
mately, Labour is discontented with its lot — the mystery
is rather why it is not infinitely more so than we find
it — but this by itself tells us too little. We want to
know further why discontent comes to a head at this
or that point of time, and why it takes this or that form
rather than another. Doubtless, there is much in
these particular inquiries that must for ever elude us ;
but partial answers are both possible and necessary.
If then we ask why the Labour Unrest came in 1910
rather than at some other time, the answer will be
real and relevant, though incomplete.

First, we may lay much, as is usually done, to the
charge of the rise in prices all round. From 1900 to
1910, wages were nearly stationary, while prices went
up by leaps and bounds. The reader has only to go
to Mr. Chiozza Money’s Riches and Poverty, or to the
official statement just issued by the Board of Trade, to
find this abundantly confirmed. Now, it is clear that
stationary wages and rising prices mean decreased
comfort and increased sense of deprivation ; and,
though mere under-payment tends to produce acqui¬
escence and servility rather than revolt, the same
cannot be said of actual retrogression in the standard
of living. The falling off of purchasing power, whether
connected in the worker’s mind with the rise in prices
or merely felt as a hard fact, is calculated to produce
revolt and not acquiescence; and this is precisely
what has occurred. It is often argued that the poor,
buying bad goods below market price, feel the rise in
prices less than statistics assume, and that really the
shoe has not pinched at all or at least so hard as we
suppose ; but this would apply in any case only to a

36

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

small section of the very poor in the great towns ; and
it would be far truer to say that vast numbers, living
on spasmodic credit from small traders who have to
overcharge them to make ends meet, really feel the
pinch far more than other classes of the community.
Wasteful buyers of necessity at the best, they are also
the first to experience the effects of a general rise in
prices. They are the worst customers, and they are
most at the tradesman’s mercy ; and therefore they
suffer. It is indeed useless to dispute that, between
1900 and 1910, the condition of the workers as a whole
grew steadily worse. It may have made some advance
since then ; but we are now investigating the con¬
ditions that preceded the unrest. First then, as occa¬
sional cause, we have a rise in prices without a corre¬
sponding rise in wages ; that is to say, we have a fall
in real wages and in purchasing power. This by itself
would be enough to account for the outbreak, and
probably was, in fact, the main cause. No doubt, the
process of reasoning in the worker’s mind was seldom
so logical ; he merely felt the discomfort and resented
it ; and then the social student stepped in to provide
him with a theoretical justification for which he prob¬
ably cared very little, save when it served him as an
argument. But, realised or unrealised, this fall in
real wages was the main basis of the labour unrest.

A second cause to which, in some quarters, con¬
siderable prominence is given, is the supposed failure
of the Parliamentary Labour Party. At the 1906
elections, the new party clearly aroused not a little
enthusiasm and expectation : the confidence was
sustained till after the passage of the Trades Disputes
Act, its one real, and, it may be, short-lived triumph ;
but from that moment its honour in the Labour world
has steadily decreased. It has not really done so

THE LABOUR UNREST

37

much less than those who knew it expected all along ;
but it has disappointed extravagant and ill-founded
expectations, and it has afforded no basis for newer
and more justifiable hopes. We knew all along that
the Labour Party consisted for the most part of un¬
imaginative Liberal working-men of the old type, and
that, so long as it remained full of such men, it could
not be a really independent party ; but this was not so
clearly recognised by the Labour movement as a whole,
and especially by the Socialist wing, which looked
forward to collaring the whole for Socialism. We
should have known all along what to expect ; but now
that we have got it, many of us are not satisfied. It
seems to many that the great Labour movement has
been content recently to put too many eggs into one
basket, and that, now we have seen how it limps under
the weight, it is time to restore a balance.

Doubtless, for their own purposes, various types of
people have been ready to make all they can of this
‘ failure The Conservatives, not unnaturally regard¬
ing the Labour members as just so many disguised
Liberal voters in Parliament, have been quite ready
to use the arguments of their extreme opponents to
throw discredit on an enemy they regard as, for the
moment at least, the more dangerous. Preoccupied
with matters parliamentary, they see that the weaken¬
ing of the Labour Party does not necessarily strengthen
any other section of their opponents, and may there¬
fore well be sheer gain. We therefore find them argu¬
ing, along with the Syndicalists, that the Labour Party
is only the tail of the Liberal dog, and only diverging
in the conclusions they desire to draw. On the other
hand, there is the attack of the Syndicalist . .who either
repudiates parliamentary action altogether, or holds
that the importance attached to it is, for the present,

38

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

exaggerated. This attack may take any form, from
extreme 7 direct-actionism ’ to modified disillusion
with the actual achievements of the Labour Party.
We shall have more to say of this aspect of the
question later ; for the moment we are concerned
with it only as a contributory cause of labour
unrest.

As such, its importance has certainly been much
exaggerated. The Labour Party has indeed ceased to
excite enthusiasm, and therefore to make progress ;
but this is equally the recent position of all political
parties. Political interest may not have waned ;
but political enthusiasm has certainly done so. Most
men are, if not disgusted, at least bored with all
parties. With the Labour Party there is not so much
positive cause for complaint as with the Liberals ; and,
therefore, men are more bored than annoyed. Further
than this most people have not gone ; there is nothing
like the great and conscious revolt against politics that
the Syndicalists and the New Witness would have us
believe in.

It may be said that a revulsion of feeling need not be
highly conscious. Men may revolt, without knowing
exactly why, or even that they are doing so. In this
sense, the dissatisfaction with politics has no doubt
had something to do with the turning of men’s minds
back to industrial action and the strike. But in the
main there is no need to go so far afield in the search
for causes. The attack on politics rather profited
subsequently by the labour unrest than itself caused
it. The reverse would no doubt have been more
logical ; but the logical order is often reversed in fact.
Economic pressure, falling or stationary wages
accompanied by rising prices, and a rising standard of
expectation are by themselves cause enough for a

THE LABOUR UNREST

39

hundred times as much unrest as we have had, or are
likely to get for years to come.

Above all, the cause was not the hot weather. The
weather was no doubt a favourable accident ; it
made it easier to get and keep the men out, and
contributed something to the success of the strikes.
But at most, it only determined the actual moment of
the outbreak ; it had nothing to do with deciding
whether there should or should not be a strike at all.

Agitation, another explanation popular in some
quarters, no doubt did something too. But agitation
must have something to agitate about ; and where it
has that, the subject of the agitation takes the place
as cause of the agitation itself. The blessed word
' agitator ’ is only, used to dull the social conscience of
the well-to-do. [The cause of discontent was that
people found they had not enough money, and that
money was not going so far as it had gone. The
unrest, therefore, was in a great measure not revolu¬
tionary : the demand was, in the minds of most of
those who made it, for increased comfort rather than
for abstract justice^ Such a demand has, however,
always revolutionary possibilities, and these were
present to the minds at least of some of the leaders
and not a few of the rank and file. Where there is
such a germ, industrial action is the best soil for making
it grow ; but it must be admitted that there is at
present very little real revolutionary feeling in this
country. By ‘ revolutionary ’ is, of course, meant
aiming at complete social reconstruction and not at
mere patching and mending of the existing social
system : it is not implied that the method of revolution

need be violent and catastrophic.

In denying ‘ agitation ’ as a cause, we should not
be understood to deny the enormous influence which

40

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

certain leaders had over the recent unrest. Tom
Mann and Ben Tillett, to mention only two, are names
with which the uprisings of 1910-12 will always be
associated. Yet even their influence — great as it
undoubtedly was — has been, on the whole, exaggerated.
Tom Mann did not in any sense cause the strikes or the
unrest : he contributed a great deal to the direction
they took and to the guiding of the ‘ unrest ’ into
definite and constructive channels, but he cannot be
said to have caused it. He utilised an existing state
of affairs with an eye to a wider future as well as to
the present. His career is therefore interesting rather
as an account of the enduring results the movement is
likely to bring forth, than as the historical explanation
of its origin. Tom Mann’s success came no doubt
largely from his personal qualities, his gift of oratory,
and his strong personality and vivid enthusiasm ; but
it came much more from the fact that he chose the
right moment for his reappearance. The time was
ripe, and it was his fortune and privilege to be the
spark to set the train alight.

Tom Mann, after many years' absence in Australia,
returned to England at the end of 1910. As far back
as 1889 he was concerned with John Burns and Ben
Tillett in organising the London Dock Strike, and, as
a Trade Union theorist, wrote some articles in the
journal of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, of
which his recent views are only a development. In
those articles he favoured closer unity by means of
Federation ; events since then have proved that bare
Federation is, in most cases, of very little use, and
that Amalgamation alone can give unity with the
strong financial basis that is absolutely essential. In
Australia and New Zealand he studied the working
of the complicated systems of arbitration which are

THE LABOUR UNREST

4i

there in force, and gathered an impression highly
unfavourable to arbitration as a whole.1 The in¬
dustrial battle, he found, must, in spite of all State
machinery, finally amount to a trial of strength and
organisation between masters and men, a warfare
which may be either open or concealed, and which
he would sooner have revealed in all its nakedness.
He therefore returned to England with views upon
the industrial question already strongly formed. He
found, as we have seen, the temper of the workers
already at boiling point, and was at once invited to
play a leading part in the outburst. From the first,
he knew his business ; he was well aware that the
English worker cannot be carried away by mere
reasoning, and that the only way to get him to concern
himself with an idea is to show it him actually at
work. Tom Mann therefore began by organising
strikes, and only preached the abstract gospel of the
strike when he had already shown how it could be
realised in practice. The first Dock Strikes of Liver¬
pool and London were his practical demonstrations of
the theory he had to present. They wei'e followed by
pamphlets — by no means so cogent in themselves as
the actual experiments — by lectures given all over
the country, and by an agitation carried on mainly
through the Industrial Syndicalist Education League.
We shall have more to say of this campaign later on :
here we only draw attention to Tom Mann’s career
because it is impossible, in looking back upon the
unrest, to miss so central a figure. Tom Mann, what¬
ever his weaknesses, was, for the moment, the most
striking personality in the Trade Union world. The
ideas this book is an attempt to advocate are largely
1 Tom Mann’s From Single Tax to Syndicalism contains an
account of his Australian experiences.

42

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

those which seem likely to be permanently conserved
out of the rather ill-assorted mass that he has put
before the world of Labour. The appeal for solidarity,
which is the vital and informing idea of all his pro¬
paganda, is precisely the idea which a developed labour
organisation is in most danger of neglecting. The
egoism of organised groups is no doubt in itself
superior to the egoism of isolated individuals, just as
a band of thieves, among whom is honour, is better
than a single thief, whose hand is against all men.
But if egoism is to pass into something higher, organisa¬
tion must not remain merely sectional : the world of
Labour must be made to realise its unity, and to work
together for the common good. When it does that,
there is more hope that it will realise the existence of
an even higher common good which is not that even
of Labour as a whole, but of the entire community.
It may to some people be a disappointment to under¬
stand that such a realisation would at once make the
social revolution certain.

Unrest, the unrest of which we have been speaking,
is almost purely a national phenomenon. Strong
though the bonds that bind the commercial doings
of nations together have grown, they have not yet
caused either Labour or the employers to organise,
or even to feel, to much purpose, internationally.
Doubtless there is on both sides a realisation that
the interest of either party is at bottom the same
in every country, and that national development
may often be stimulated or retarded by conditions
overseas. Certainly too, feeling in these matters is
destined to become, in the near future, far more
international ; and international sentiment is certain
to be followed, at a respectful distance, by inter¬
national organisation. But at present such causes

THE LABOUR UNREST

43

are wholly insignificant beside the special industrial
circumstances of each particular country ; and it is
on these, and not on international feeling, that the
ebb and flow of unrest will for some time continue
to depend. Such circumstances themselves are indeed
far from being wholly independent of similar con¬
ditions in other countries ; but these correspondences
are as yet largely unsystematised, and, broadly
speaking, we may say that ‘ unrest ’ depends almost
solely upon national, as opposed to international,
circumstances.

What, then, is the value of all the talk we hear
about the ‘ international proletariat ’ and the solidarity
of the dispossessed in every country on the face of
the earth ? It is necessary here to distinguish.
Solidarity of this sort is admittedly unrealised and
for the present unrealisable. At the most, it is only
possible to get occasional co-operation in times of
crisis ; and, as we have recently seen in the case of
Belgium, even so much is very difficult to secure.
The Belgian workers, it will be remembered, pre¬
paring for a general strike in support of universal
suffrage, asked British workers to help them by
refusing to handle coal intended for Belgium. This
was referred by the British Miners to the Transport
Workers, who did their best, but achieved practically
nothing. In fact, any such proposal offers extra¬
ordinary difficulties, and in the main, Labour in each
country has to be left to fight its own battles. A
day may come when more will be possible ; but that
day is not yet.

There is, however, another sense in which the
international question is highly relevant to our
subject. Even if the dispossessed of different nations
cannot do much to help one another, they have at

44

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

bottom the same battles to fight, and the same enemy
to overthrow. Everywhere exploiter and exploited
face each other in a social system which, more or
less complicated in different instances, is always
fundamentally the same. Everywhere is found
political democracy realised or well on the way to
realisation ; and everywhere this democracy is
illusory because it is accompanied by a tyrannical
economic feudalism, which leaves the voter, for all
his hard-won democratic liberty, still a wage-slave
and a member of the great class of the disinherited.

But this international kinship, however inspiring,
does not make much practical difference. There are
international questions of a different sort which are
hard facts and have, whether we like it or not, to
be taken into account. It is unquestionable that,
with the world-market as highly organised as it now
is, a difference in rates of wages, and consequently
in cost of production, between two countries cannot
but affect the industry of the country paying the
higher rates. Of course, the difference may be
neutralised by national character or local conditions,
or the higher wages may actually be productive
enough in point of efficiency to annul it ; but, unless
these conditions are present, it is clear that the
countries where wages are lower will have an economic
pull. This means two things : first, that no country
can afford to get too far ahead of its rivals in point
of wages and the like, at least under a capitalistic
regime ; and secondly, that it is to the interest of
the Labour movement in any country that other
nations shall not lag behind. For, if they do, the
countries that are in advance of the rest will be unable
to make further progress, in so far as they are rivals
of the more backward. The Labour movement

THE LABOUR UNREST

45

must therefore aim everywhere at a corresponding,
if not a co-operative, advance ; the solidarity of
international Labour is more than the idealistic
camaraderie of the oppressed ; it is even the essential
condition of amelioration.

It does not follow from this, as some Syndicalists
would have us believe, that the worker must abjure
patriotism, and become a citizen of the world of
Labour, pure and simple. Just as the individuals
who work together in a Trade Union for the bettering
of their lot still remain individuals, the national
Labour organisations may work together without
losing their nationality. However much they may
need to co-operate, they certainly do not require to
be fused. In point of fact, we find that while, in
recent years, Trade Unionism has been making a
parallel growth in various countries, its progress and
direction have been by no means uniform. The
general aspect of industrial organisation is very
different indeed in England, in Germany, in France,
in Italy, and in the United States ; and these differ¬
ences seem to come partly from the peculiar con¬
ditions under which industry is carried on in each
case, and partly from differences in national tempera¬
ment and tradition. In England, we seem to have
come to one of the periodical crises in national organisa¬
tion ; and it will be impossible to attempt the task
of resolving our present problems without some
examination of the national movements of other
countries. This will accordingly form part of our
task, before we go on to draw conclusions and make
provisional recommendations. The influence of other
national movements has to be taken into account in
respect both of what it has actually accomplished
and of the lessons we may profitably learn from it.

46

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

For, even if Labour in this country must, in the
last resort, provide for its own salvation, it is still
clear that, in valuing the various means at its dis¬
posal, we have to take into account such modifica¬
tions in their use and disposition as can be learnt
from abroad. These inquiries are therefore necessary
as helps towards the resolution of the main question
in industry, which faces not merely the worker, but
also the public at large. This question is, first,
whether strikes have failed ; and secondly, if so,
whether they must inevitably fail. Is the strike,
as an instrument of industrial emancipation, really
played out, or have we come to a period in which
we may expect to witness its great and successful
revival ? We can only decide this question when we
have looked further into the actualities and the
possibilities of Trade Unionism, and, until we have
settled it, we cannot hope to settle the vexed problem
of the relation between industrial and political action.
Here, merely surveying the facts of the unrest, we
are directly concerned only to see what is actually
taking place. We can expect at best to answer only
the first part of the question, and to say whether
strikes do or do not fail. Whether they must fail
we can only see, if at all, at the end of our inquiry.

Certain superficial facts at any rate are clear. As
a general rule, in the past the best paid labour has
struck, while the worst paid has been either legislated
for, or more often, neglected. Just recently we have
seen exceptions to both these rules : the best paid
labour, by strikes or threats, has secured legislation ;
and the worst-paid labour, influenced by the unrest,
has begun to strike. The Miners have secured their
Eight Hours’ Act and their Minimum Wage Act,
and so seem to have acted up to the Syndicalist

THE LABOUR UNREST

47

principle that “ useful laws can be won by direct
action ” ; and, on the other hand, the Cradley Heath
strike of Chain-makers, and the recent strikes in the
Black Country are cases of the insurgence of the
underpaid and underorganised. But as a whole the
rule is still unchanged ; and we cannot expect that
it will soon be otherwise. Organisation brings higher
wages, and, even more, high wages lead to organisa¬
tion ; and therefore those who are best off are always
in the best position for getting more. The defect
of Trade Unionism as a whole is that it helps the
strong more than the weak. This has no doubt its
compensating advantages : it is easier in this way
to make some slight breach in the capitalist system,
and for effective action of any sort it is necessary
that the workers in some trades at least should be
well organised. But, on the face of it, this inherent
defect of our Trade Unionism does seem to leave a
wide sphere for the action of Parliament in industrial
matters. Labour, as a single great movement, cannot
afford to leave the weaker brethren, and more
especially the weaker sisters, in the lurch.

It is often urged that this defect would be remedied
by the Greater, as opposed to ‘ craft ’, Unionism, and,
in the sequel, we shall have to examine this claim more
narrowly. But it is at any rate clear that any practic¬
able form of Unionism would still leave many of the
underpaid as unorganised as now. It would increase
the solidarity of all grades in industries already well
organised, but it would not mean a sudden organisa¬
tion of the workers in industries where Unionism is at
present weak.

We shall, then, find it necessary to allow a place to
parliamentary action for the raising of wages in certain
kinds of industry, and, in order to assign briefly the

48

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

scope of such action, we shall have to examine shortly
the Wages Board or Trade Board system as it is found
in Australia and, under Mr. Churchill’s Act, in England.
We shall also have to say something of other sorts of
Minimum Wage proposals. In doing so, we shall be
dealing with governmental action as raising wages
where direct action would be impotent, with com¬
mittees appointed by Parliament definitely to take
sides, and help the weaker sections of the world of
Labour.

It is important to realise that this is a wholly
different problem from another which we shall be
unable to neglect. Such Wages Boards are not
instances of conciliation or arbitration. They are
State action in the interests of the oppressed, and
imply no revolutionary principle, or admission that
labour as a whole is underpaid. They merely raise
abnormal wages to the standard rate, and do nothing
actually to raise that rate.

Conciliation, on the other hand, is founded on an
entirely different principle. It aims, not at helping
one party to a conflict against the other, but at in¬
creasing the chances of industrial peace. It takes
no side, and merely tries, by measuring strength, to
replace conflicts by peaceful settlements. The peace
it presupposes is the peace, not of the two parties, but
of the community at large. A settlement by con¬
ciliation is, or may be, as much a trial of strength as a
strike. It is a method of comparing resources — of
which public support may of course form part — in
order to avoid a trial of endurance between profits and
stomachs — or purses. Such conciliation may be
applied to any branch of labour in which a conflict, a
trial of strength between the parties, may arise ; but
not elsewhere. It is the diplomacy of industrialism,

THE LABOUR UNREST

49

and differs only in that it may easily take on permanent
forms. This has been stated more strongly perhaps
than some of the facts warrant, on the basis of a definite
view of the proper scope and methods of conciliation.
In the sequel, it will be examined in much more detail,
and its tendency to pass over into an artificial binding-
down of the employee by long agreements will be
further discussed.

Arbitration is the third factor that has to be taken
into account. It rests upon a principle differing from
both the former. It neither definitely takes sides,
and aims at raising wages in the interest of the op¬
pressed, nor is a mere trial of strength a substitute for
actual stoppages of work. Arbitration is in fact a
vague word, which covers a multitude of meanings.

Conciliation in itself implies merely a meeting of the
two parties to discuss terms of peace. This meeting
may aim either at preventing or at ending a stoppage,
and may be undertaken either on the motion of the
parties themselves, or on a suggestion from outside.
Both kinds of conciliation are plentifully found in this
country, and we shall have to study them apart. A
second differentia is to be found in the presence or
absence of a neutral Chairman. In pure conciliations,
the parties are confronted, and no more ; the Chair¬
man, if there is one, has no actual power. The neutral
element once admitted, however, conciliation readily
changes its character ; the Chairman acquires more
and more power, and often becomes in the end a pure
arbitrator, before whom the two representative sections
of the Board merely appear as witnesses. The third
and most important factor is whether the decisions of
the Board — or of the Chairman — are, or are not, bind¬
ing. If decisions made by the Chairman alone are
binding, it is clear that we have passed over from
4

50

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

conciliation to arbitration. Recourse is then to an
impartial judge from without, and the parties merely
appear, as in a court, to have their case tried.

This still leaves open the question of principle for
the Chairman or arbitrator. Is he to be guided by
the strength of the parties, or by abstract justice, or by
a combination of the two ? Or is he to regard him¬
self as there merely to secure peace at any price, and
to be guided throughout by the merest opportunism ?
We seem to have been content, so far, to leave such
questions unsettled ; and, in doing so, we have made
the arbitrator’s task very difficult. Arbitration is, in
fact, a name for a new method of keeping industrial
peace, and it is still so vague and indeterminate mainly
because our rulers have not yet decided what to do.
Sir George Askwith’s visit to Canada and his report
upon it, are, in this connection, of the first importance,
as they seem both to indicate the line of future develop¬
ment, and to show very clearly that a veiled form of
compulsory arbitration is a proposal to be reckoned
with by the Trade Unions in the near future. To this
they hardly seem enough awake, though an Act on the
lines of the Canadian measure would certainly, as has
happened in Canada, profoundly modify the whole
industrial situation. It will therefore be essential to
discuss all these points in more detail.

In this, as in other cases, the general impression left
by Labour in this country is that of a feeble intel¬
lectual life. There would seem to be little conscious
attempt to do the hard thinking which is at present
necessary, and an appalling readiness to muddle
through on the old ideas. In particular, Labour
journalism shows signs of this weakness. Of the two
Labour dailies, the Daily Citizen seems to be of the old
opinion that “to generalise is to be an idiot”, and

THE LABOUR UNREST

5i

stedfastly refuses to confront big Trade Union ques¬
tions. It welcomed the coming of the National
Union of Railwaymen, but, reflecting the common
hostility of the old leaders to most forms of Trade
Union amalgamation, carefully refrained from drawing
any more general conclusions. On the whole, the
Citizen reflects the policy of the Labour Party, which
is mere opportunism. It is not a journal for soul-
searchings, or for the working out of anything new.

Soul-searchings are, on the other hand, the strong
point of the Daily Herald, which devotes itself to a
somewhat indiscriminate revolt against all that is.
The Herald is delightfully fresh and receptive of
ideas, and rushes at a generalisation like a hunter
at a five-barred gate ; but its power of co-ordination
is limited, and it seems to find difficulty in passing
from revolt to reconstruction. Mr. Will Dyson’s
cartoons are splendid, and the Herald’s violence is
refreshing ; but it too has failed to formulate a well-
defined policy.

The only other Socialist paper, except the New
Statesman, which stands for Mr. and Mrs. Webb,
containing any constructive suggestions; is the New
Age, the aggressively independent weekly, which
may be loved or hated, but never tolerated. The
New Age also has an almost universal propensity to
denunciation ; but in its policy of ultimate co-opera¬
tion between the State and the Unions, which it names
National Guilds, it has hold of the only possible solu¬
tion of the industrial problem. The proposal for co¬
management between the State and the Unions is
unquestionably a forecast of the society of the future ;
and we shall have much more to say of it hereafter.
The weakness of the New Age is that its theoretical
reconstruction is imperfectly accompanied by sugges-

52

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

tions ior the actual transition. It is always a little
scornful of the present and more than a little scorn¬
ful of democracy ; it does little to teach us how to
build the New Jerusalem, of which it has seized
the general idea. It is, however, above all a paper
with ideas, and the phenomenon is rare enough for
gratitude. Its influence is very limited at present,
and it unfortunately appeals mainly to the middle-
classes.

It is, in fact, exceedingly difficult to get new ideas
into the heads of old administrators ; and, the first
need of the Unions in their everyday life being com¬
petent administrators, an official type of mind has
been developed and has filled all the posts. The
wild fulminations against Syndicalism of Labour
leaders, who ought to know better, would be less
harmful had not nearly all the legislative, as well
as the executive, work of the Unions fallen into their
hands. The administrative mind, good at carrying
out a policy, is bad at dictating one, and the practical
union of the two powers in the Executive Committees
of the Unions has brought about the feeling of opposi¬
tion to leadership which is now running through the
Labour movement. Precisely the same problem has
arisen in industrial, as in political, democracy ; in
both, the representative system needs revision, and
no one yet knows quite how revision is to be accom¬
plished. The problem of Trade Union government is
as great and pressing as that of the Greater Unionism.
This, too, is at the back of the unrest, and forms a
great part of the ill- digested mass of aspiration which
we call Syndicalism.

For the moment, the working-class seems to have
shown itself incapable of clear thinking. It has done
next to nothing, during the last three years, to intro-

THE LABOUR UNREST

53

duce order into the chaotic jumble of new ideas by
which it has been stirred. It would no doubt be
better for it to do its own thinking without help
from outside ; but, as it is unlikely to do this, it
cannot afford to reject any help that is forthcoming.
It is difficult for the Trade Unionist, and especially
for the leader actually engaged in administrative
work, to take a view of the condition of Trade
Unionism which transcends the particular problems
of his own industry. The administrator as a rule
does not generalise, while the member of the rank
and file, if he does generalise at all, does so far too
broadly. Into this gap middle-class Socialists and
sympathisers — those who on the Continent are called
the ‘ intellectuals ’ — will be forced to step. The work
which Mr. and Mrs. Webb began with Industrial
Democracy nearly twenty years ago has to be taken
up anew, and the question has to be studied over
again in the light of more recent developments. For
the doing of such work this book is a plea. The
work itself demands co-operation and long, patient
endeavour. But, if there is to be any escape from
the present muddle, it is work that must be done.

It is indeed true that, so far, the entry of the intel¬
lectuals into the field of industrial politics has been
a dismal fiasco. The Daily Mail’s banal publication,
What the Worker Wants, from Mr. H. G. Wells’s
articles to the scattered contributions of most of the
distinguished nonentities in Christendom, is a long
record of absolute bankruptcy of ideas. Mr. Wells
characteristically describes the muddle well, but has
no hint of a solution to offer. The rest fail even to
understand that anything out of the way is happen¬
ing. But the ‘ intellectuals ’ of the Daily Mail need
not be the intellectuals of the new philosophy of

54

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

Labour. There are real inquirers who, would they
but turn their attention this way, could do much to
formulate an up-to-date philosophy for the Labour
movement. Collectivism is both too fruitful to be
allowed to die, and too narrow to be the whole truth.
But unless old doctrines are revised, they will perish,
and there will be nothing to put in their place.

It must then be realised that the unrest has not
merely a cause but a justification. It is the first
awakening of a new and positive demand, of a nascent
philosophy which needs formulation and interpreta¬
tion. Behind the new industrialism is the germ of
the demand for the real control of industry by the
workers, for an ‘ Industrial Democracy ’ that shall
mean not merely Trade Union management, but
the real superintendence of industrial processes and
conditions.

It is a sign of this growing demand that, in all
the great industrial countries of Europe in which
tables are kept showing the various causes of strikes,
the proportion due to direct demands for higher
wages shows a marked diminution. Disputes tend
more and more to centre round questions which, a
few years ago, would unhesitatingly have been lumped
together as matters of ‘ discipline ’ and ' manage¬
ment’, clearly outside the competence of Trade
Unions. The breakdown of the Brooklands Agree¬
ment is one case ; but by far the most widespread
sign of the new spirit is the increasing prominence
of the non-unionist question. Naturally, this question
arises only in cases in which Trade Unionism is already
strong ; but the definite assertion of the refusal to
work with non-unionists throughout even one
industry would be a tremendous step in advance,
and could not fail to have an immense effect on the

THE LABOUR UNREST

55

Trade Union movement as a whole.1 For every step
the Unions take towards becoming compulsory cor¬
porations, preserving free entry, but allowing no non-
unionists in their industries, takes them a long way
towards attaining the competence necessary for a
far higher control over industry as a whole. In the
end, the fitness of the Unions to control industry
must depend on the will and corporate capacity of
their members. They are indeed as yet a very long
way off the necessary coherence and capacity ; but
every move they make in this direction should be
welcomed. The delegation of control by the State
is the only possible solution ; and instead of lamenting
the lot of the ‘ free labourer ’, more accurately known
to the populace as the ‘ blackleg ’ or ‘ scab ’, those
who desire real progress should be concerned in
destroying him root and branch. The ‘ free labourer ’
is at best a mere ignorant catspaw of the employer,
and, as the better employers are finding out, it pays
better in the end to play fair.

Of all these various and yet homogeneous matters
we have been outlining is made up the vague and in¬
definite movement we are learning to call Syndicalism.
Those who fear vagueness in terminology more than
they love a new idea will shun the word ; but by
those who really understand that there is something
new in the air needing a name, it will be welcomed.
Such a label must of necessity begin by being in¬
definite : it took Socialism more than half a century
to get its definite connotation, and its doing so was not
in the end clear gain. Syndicalism is a word which
means something and something important, though
what it means is at present ill-understood. Its mean¬
ing is, in fact, something the future has to decide by its

1 The Miners and the Railwavmen are making this demand.

56

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

manner of facing the present crisis in the industrial
world. At present, it is impossible to do more than
pick out the various problems which it has to face with¬
out further defining their central unity. Briefly, we
may set forth the most important after this fashion : —

1. Industrial Organisation. — Should the workers

organise on an ‘occupational’, an ‘in¬
dustrial’, or a ‘ craft ’ basis ? (see Chapter
VII.).

2. Industrial Action. — Are strikes or politics the

best weapon for the working-classes ? (see
Chapter XIII.).

3. Trade Union Control. — How can the internal

organisation of the Unions be modified so
as to give the rank and file greater hold
over the leaders, without making com¬
bined action slower or more difficult ? (see
Chapters VII., VIII., and XII.).

4. Strikes and Arbitration. — What should be the

attitude of Labour to proposed methods of
industrial peace ? (see Chapter IX.).

5. The Control of Industry. — How can the workers

be given a greater share in the real control
of industrial processes and methods of
production? (see Chapter XI.).

All these problems may seem to lack co-ordination,
and to be merely scattered and isolated points round
which discussion happens simultaneously to be raging.
They pass, however, too readily one into another to
admit of such a view. The first four problems are all
being faced, at the present time, by Trade Unionists
all over the country, and in all countries in which the
Labour movement has made much progress. They
have, of course, taken on different forms according
to the time and place of their appearance ; but, on

THE LABOUR UNREST

57

the whole, they have offered much the same difficulties
for solution. America alone should be excepted ; for
there the problems have arisen in so peculiar a form
that, though it is important to deal with them in order
to explain certain industrial phenomena in this country,
it is more important to remark differences than re¬
semblances. It is well to begin with Syndicalism in
France, both as being the first in time, and as raising
the questions in their most general form.

CHAPTER III

LABOUR TN FRANCE

The evolution of the Labour movement in France re¬
produces, in the main outlines, the national history
since the Revolution of 1789. It is therefore in broad
contrast with the English movement, just as English
national history is with that of France. The English
Trade Union movement has reached its present develop¬
ment because there has at no point been a break ; the
evolution has been continuous, and dictated in every
case by the pragmatic logic of the immediate fact. In
France, on the other hand, the ‘ syndical ’ movement
has felt the effect of all the successive shocks sustained
by the national system : it has built itself up only to
fall in the midst of the next national upheaval, and in
consequence of this marked discontinuity it has not
developed, purely in face of practical considerations, a
mass of entanglements and contradictions which, work¬
ing fairly well in practice, are the despair of the theorist.
It may well be, indeed, that this repeated need for rapid
re-creation of the movement has caused theory to play
a larger part than practice in giving it form ; several
times over it has been created whole, after a pattern
in somebody’s mind, and not slowly developed as the
facts called it forth. But still more this attention to
theory has been the effect of national temperament :

the French, still full of revolutionary principles, and

58

LABOUR IN FRANCE

59

concerned to make everything square with the ideas
of 1789, have always thought of the syndical problem
as a unity, and been concerned to give it logical form
and justification. Long before the philosophy of
Syndicalism was thought of, long before Pelloutier
began his work, the Radicals who, led by Waldeck-
Rousseau, legalised the ‘ Syndicats ’ in 1884, had
worked out for themselves a conception of the place
the workers’ Unions should occupy in the Society of
the present and of the future. The ideas of the
Syndicalists are a development— whether justifiable
or not, we shall have to consider — of the views of
the Radicals who were responsible for the law of
1884.1

This theoretical character of the French movement
makes it both easier and more difficult to study for
our purpose. It is easier to ascertain the ideas that
are behind it and to get a general view of its aims ; but
it is correspondingly difficult to discover how far it
succeeds or fails. Doubtless, the impulse it has given
to the sluggish mind of English Trade Unionism comes
mainly from its theoretical basis, and is therefore more
readily estimated; but, before we can pass judgment
upon it, we certainly want to know what it has effected,
and this is far harder. Not merely is the continuous
history of French Labour organisation much shorter
and the development in every respect more rudi¬
mentary, but also the French have so far been very

1 For the ideas of the Radicals, see J. Paul-Boncour, Le
Federalism^ Economique, which has a preface by Waldeck-
Rousseau. For their view of Syndicalism, see M. Paul-Bon¬
cour ’s Les Syndicats de Fonctionnaires. The chapter “ Les
Idees Syndicates de Waldeck-Rousseau ” in Victor Diligent’s
Les Orientations Syndicates also gives a good outline. See
further, M. Leroy, Les Transformations de la Puissance Publique,
and L. Barthou, V Action Syndicate.

6o

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

poor hands at keeping records and statistics. The
Government statistics of the Office du Travail are very
unsatisfactory, and those kept by the C.G.T. or its
constituent parts wholly inadequate. In book after
book, where figures are thought worthy of admission
at all, the same old statistics are given, and even these
are seldom trustworthy. We are therefore driven
very much to form our view of Syndicalism in France
mainly on the theory, on its professions of what it
aims at doing, rather than on the actual record of what
it has done. We shall make some attempt at esti¬
mating its actual achievement, but in the main we shall
be concerned with views more than with facts. After
all, it is with views that we are more directly con¬
cerned.

It is important, at the outset, to get a general view
of the state of Labour organisation in France. Even
this is not so easy as it seems to us, with our carefully
sorted Trade Union returns and Board of Trade
publications. The Office du Travail does indeed pub¬
lish figures showing the aggregate strength of Trade
Unionism in France, but these figures do not by any
means represent the real fighting force of Labour.
They include ‘ syndicats mixtes ’ , which are mere benefit
societies, often attached to particular factories ; ‘ syndi¬
cats jaunes ’, which are more or less ‘ blackleg ’ institu¬
tions supported by the masters ; and agricultural
syndicats, which have no part in the general industrial
movement. Thus, although the strength of Trade
Unionism in France is officially given at more than
two millions, this by no means represents the strength
of the Confederation Generale du Travail (C.G.T.) or
that of the effective fighting force of industrial workers.
On the whole, it seems safe to conclude that the strength
of the organised workers in French industry is under a

LABOUR IN FRANCE

61

million.1 This number compares very unfavourably
with the three millions odd of either England or
Germany, even when the numbers engaged in industry,
excluding agriculture, in these countries are taken
into account. Trade Unionism in France has certainly
made nothing like the progress it can show in either
England or Germany, and there seems no sign of any
rapid advance at present. No doubt, the English
Unions have a far longer history behind them, and are
therefore naturally more advanced ; but in the case
of Germany we find a newer organisation catching up
and passing the older movement. On the score of
numbers alone, French Trade Unionism has nothing
to boast of : it is behindhand, and seems unlikely to
move forward more rapidly than in the past. It would
not, however, be safe to attribute this weakness entirely
to the particular form which the movement has taken
in France. It would seem, as we shall see later on, to
be far more a result of national character and environ¬
ment as well as of the actual conditions of French
industry.

As all the world knows, the chief power in the
French Labour movement is the Confederation Generale
du Travail. Here, too, the numbers are by no means
easy to determine. The only figures on which reliance
can be placed are those of the members actually
contributing to the central funds of the C.G.T., i.e.
those for whom affiliation fees are paid by the societies
to which they belong. These, according to M . J ouhaux,
General Secretary of the C.G.T., number 450,000. 2

1 977)35° 1S the figure based by Levine on the official figures
for 1910, making the necessary deductions for agricultural
workers, etc. But it still includes many syndicats ] dunes,
which are not fighting organisations.

2 See L. J ouhaux, Le Syndicalisms Franpais, 1913, p. 9.

62

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

But contributions are paid very irregularly, and M.
Jouhaux reckons that the actual number of members
is over 600,000. Mr. Levine, on the other hand,
puts it at only 357,814 for 1910. 1 This, however,
refers to actual paying members, of whom M. Pouget
tells us there were 295,000 actually paying into the
section of Federations in 1909. 2 If, then, M. J ouhaux’s
figures are reliable, and there is little reason for
believing that they are not, the C.G.T. has, in the
last tew years, grown considerably in effective member¬
ship, and we shall not be wrong in putting its effec¬
tive force at quite 500,000. When the non-fighting
syndicats are deducted from the estimated total of
rather under a million, this leaves not very many
organised workers outside the C.G.T. It is indeed
significant that, in spite of the continual disputes
that have divided the C.G.T. into two hostile groups,
there has been only one secession, that of the Cheminots
de I’Est (Eastern Railwaymen), who alone of the
dissentient ' Reformist ’ syndicats split off in 1909
after Niel’s resignation of the post of secretary. The
very fact that the C.G.T. has held together so firmly
shows that it is not merely the misguided body of
fanatics some detractors would have us believe. But
before we pass judgment we must examine its policy,
and to do this it is necessary to go back a little.

We have seen that the history of the French move¬
ment lacks the continuity which is peculiarly char¬
acteristic of our own. Labour organisations were,
like all particular associations, wholly suppressed in
1791 by the Loi Chapelier, which, aiming at destroy¬
ing the old * campagnonnage ’ and the revolutionary

1 L. Levine, The Labour Movement in France.

3 The Bourses formerly paid the C.G.T. so much per syndicat
affiliated, and therefore their membership was often unknown.

LABOUR IN FRANCE

63

clubs headed by Marat, put its ban in a form which
prohibited reconstruction. In this, the revolutionary
leaders no doubt conceived that they were carrying
out Rousseau’s ban on particular associations, and
looked forward to liberty, equality, and fraternity
in industry as well as in politics. But theories and
laws were alike powerless against the logic of facts,
and, in spite of prohibitions, trade associations con¬
tinued to exist and even multiplied. It is unnecessary
here to follow the early struggles of Labour through
the period of repression under Napoleon or through
the subsequent period of the Restoration. The
Revolution of 1848, in Paris, at any rate, made a
clean sweep of the past, and a new start was made.
A wave of co-operation passed over France, and when
it had died down a new ' syndieal ’ movement began
to arise. From 1864, Napoleon in. attempted a
conciliatory policy, and the syndicats * though not
legalised, were freely tolerated. The Commune of
1871 in the main affected only Paris, and as soon
as the period of repression was past, the syndicats
reappeared, and began to grow in strength. Up to
this time, however, they remained purely local in
character, and no attempt was made to co-ordinate
their scattered activities. There was a stirring of
working-class feeling ; but there was no formulated
policy and no national movement.1

The history of modern Trade Unionism in France
really begins with the passing of Waldeck-Rousseau’s
law legalising the syndicats in 1884. This law, which
is to France what those of 1871 and 1876 are to
England, at once gave the syndicats a fair measure
of freedom, and left them at liberty to follow the
1 For the history of the Labour movement in France, see
Levine, op. cit.

64

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

natural lines of development. Until the question of
Trade Unionism among State servants and teachers
came to the front a few years ago, the law of 1884
had provided a fair working basis. And, if the matter
is now reopened, there is no suggestion of going back
on what was then granted. It is inevitable that
State servants should in time win the full right to
combine. The whole dispute does not touch the
principle on which the law rests, and indeed only
arises out of an attempt to remove an anomaly.

The law of 1884 prepared the way for a more open
form of organisation than had been possible during
the period of mere toleration after the Commune.
The first Labour Congress had been held at Paris
in 1876, and from that time there had been congresses
almost annually. The third, held in 1879, had even
declared for Socialism ; but this had led to a split
on the part of the moderates in 1880. Up to 1886
the Congresses had little industrial importance ; they
were mainly meeting-points of the various schools
of Socialist thought headed by Jules Guesde, Brousse,
and Allemane. In 1886, however, a general congress
of syndicats met to express its dissatisfaction with
the new law, largely with the clause compelling
registration of all unions. It resulted in the founda¬
tion of a National Federation of Syndicats, which
soon fell into the hands of the followers of Guesde,
and became a mere tool of the Parti Ouvrier Fran^ais,
a pure Marxist body. It was prevented from gaining
industrial importance by its lack of any national
organisation by industries or of any effective local
unity, and in the eyes of the political leaders it seems
to have been mainly a vote-catching device. In
1887 the first really important move was made by
the foundation of the Paris Bourse du Travail or

LABOUR IN FRANCE

65

‘ Chamber of Labour soon followed by the opening
of several others. These first Bourses du Travail,
which were founded by, or with the help of, the
municipalities, aimed at being for Labour what
Chambers of Commerce are for the employer, general
meeting-places and centres of organisation for the
locality. Municipal subsidies were secured, partly
as election bribes, but far more because the Bourses
were to serve as Labour Exchanges for unorganised
as well as for organised Labour. In 1892 the Bourses
held their first congress, and in 1893 formed the
Federation des Bourses du Travail. Before this, the
question of the General Strike had begun to agitate
the world of Labour. In 1888, in spite of Guesdist
influence, the National Federation of Syndicats voted
in favour of the principle of the General Strike, and,
in the years following, the Allemanists, who dominated
the Bourses du Travail, also declared for it. In 1893
disputes led to the closing of the Paris Bourse by
the Government, and working-class feeling became
much more bitter. In 1894, in face of the opposition
of Guesde, the National Federation of Syndicats
was amalgamated with the Federation of Bourses,
while, in 1895, seven hundred syndicats formed
themselves definitely into the C.G.T. A rival
central organisation, founded by the Guesdists, soon
perished.

There were thus two separate national organisations
in the field : the Federation of Bourses, which de¬
pended on a purely local bond of union, and made
no attempt to organise by industries beyond the
local syndicat ; and the Confederation Generate du
Travail, which was still little more than a Trade
Union Congress with a standing committee. The
years that followed were spent in useless bickerings

5

66

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

and fruitless reconciliations between the two. The
C.G.T. continued throughout to be very weak : it
could get no subscriptions from its affiliated syndicats,
and, without funds, remained impotent. The F.B.T.,
on the other hand, grew and prospered. In 1892
there were ten Bourses ; in 1894 there were thirty-
four ; in 1902 there were already ninety-six, of which
eighty-three were in the Federation. Pelloutier, the
inspiring director of the movement, went so far as
to estimate the membership at 250,000 ; but this
was certainly an exaggeration. At last in 1902 the
Federation of Bourses and the C.G.T. coalesced,
and formed the organisation which is now known to
all as the C.G.T.

This early history is important for the under¬
standing of the modern movement, which has been
all along very much dominated by its origin. Effective
labour organisation in France sprang, in fact, wholly
from the Bourses du Travail. Attempts to organise
nationally had all been signal failures, and it was
not until the device of local organisation was hit upon
that concerted action became in any degree possible.
Syndicat in France still means a local union — there
are at the present day only four national syndicats —
and the sense of corporate individuality has always
been very strong in the localities. The Bourses
therefore to some extent succeeded, by working on
local feeling, in doing what all other forms of labour
organisation had failed to do. The Federation des
Bourses was, from the very moment of its foundation,
the pivot of the whole movement. When, therefore,
unity was at last achieved, it was above all important
that the work of Fernand Pelloutier should not be
wasted, and that the Bourse, while joining the C.G.T.,
should preserve its individuality and its place in the

LABOUR IN FRANCE 67

movement. At the same time, concerted and har¬
monious working had to be secured.

The moment of the union was itself opportune.
Between 1899 and 1902, Waldeck-Rousseau’s ministry,
including the Socialist, Millerand, was engaged upon a
programme of social reform. In 1899 a project to
amend the law of 1884 by the grant of further recog¬
nition to the Syndicate was introduced, and the Conseil
Superieur du Travail was reorganised. In 1900 came
the Councils of Labour and the new arbitration project.
All these measures, save the Conseil Superieur, aroused
strong opposition, and working-class feeling was stirred
up. In 1902, therefore, Labour was more awake than
ever before, and the well-meant Radical efforts at
‘ social peace ’ had succeeded in doing more than they
bargained for. The long period of probation left
Labour with a developed theory of action. It had not
grown up merely in the air, and at every point it had
created its own instruments of expression. With the
completion of the structure in 1902 the time was ripe
for testing its power. Thenceforward we have Syn¬
dicalism in practice, the conscious attempt to wield
the weapon ; there is still need to improve it, but in
the main the emphasis passed from organisation to
action. Pelloutier, the master-mind of the Bourses, had
been concerned chiefly with their organisation ; MM.
Pouget, Griffuelhes and Jouhaux, the present leaders
of the C.G.T., and even M. Lagardelle, its theorist,
are interested mainly in encouraging and directing its
action. The change is clearest in M. Sorel, who passed
from a theoretical work, V Avenir Socialiste desSyndicats
to Reflexions sur la Violence with their vehement de¬
nunciation of theory and insistence on the need for
continual and unremitting activity. The history of
the last ten years is therefore at once more interesting

63

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

and less easy to follow than what precedes it : practice
never runs so smoothly as theory, and in order to dis¬
cover the general character of the movement we are
forced back upon the more recent statements of the
theorists, who, generalising from the facts, present a
synopsis of the movement as a whole.

The historical method is further impossible because,
in action, the organisation preserves and intensifies its
local character. Except in a few clearly national
industries, such as mines and railways, the locality
remains always the centre of feeling and action. It
would therefore be impossible, as well as useless, to
trace the history of all the strikes in which the C.G.T.
has engaged. There will be cause to mention a few ;
but generally it need only be said that the official
figures of strikes show a great increase about this time
in the numbers involved.

Up to 1902, as we have seen, the C.G.T. had been
practically impotent. It had spent its time in financial
troubles, in conflicts and temporary reconciliations with
the Federation dcs Bowses, and in hopeless attempts
to assert itself as the real head of the Labour movement,
but it had been clear all along that the Bourses still
retained all the power and were the natural organs of
labour organisation. The report of the Comite Federal
of the C.G.T. in 1902 frankly confessed its weakness.
“ It has progressed only very slowly and has existed
with difficulty on an income of a few hundred francs.
Its propaganda has been practically non-existent,
and its results insignificant ”. In fact, the lack
of an organisation by localities, a lien local, was
fatal to it not only financially, but in all its work.
A local unit is the first necessity of French labour
organisation.

During the same period, the Federation des Bourses

LABOUR IN FRANCE

69

had grown and flourished. Internally, the Bourses had
developed and placed themselves on a sound footing,
and mushroom growths had been discouraged by the
Federation. They had, indeed, still to weather the
financial crises caused by the withdrawal of municipal
subsidies ; but the tendency was already to much
greater militancy, and the spirit of the modern C.G.T.
lived in them before its time.

The amalgamation of these two bodies gave the
Labour movement what it needed : a single strong
organisation embracing both the local and the occu¬
pational units. The old Guesdist syndicats and the
old C.G.T. had been impotent industrially for lack of
local unity ; and even the Federation des Bourses had
found its range of action circumscribed and its activities
mutilated for lack of centralisation in particular indus¬
tries. It was the purpose of the new organisation to
secure twice over the membership of every syndicat, to
get it to join both its local Bourse du Travail, and the
Federation of its industry. The Statutes of the C.G.T.
(I. 3) put this point plainly : “No Syndicat will be able
to form a part of the C.G.T. if it is not federated
nationally and an adherent of a Bourse du Travail or
a local or departmental Union of Syndicats grouping
different associations ”. Thus, M. Lagardelle explains,
the two sections will correct each other’s point of view :
national federation of industries will prevent parochial¬
ism ( localisme ), and local organisation will check the
corporate or ‘ Trade- Union ’ spirit. The workers will
learn at once the solidarity of all workers in a locality
and that of all workers in a trade, and, in learning this,
they will learn at the same time the complete solidarity
of the whole working-class.

The new C.G.T. therefore organised itself in two
sections : it was as important to maintain the distinction

70

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

as to secure equal and harmonious working. Each
section keeps its separate existence and has its own cen¬
tral committee : at regular intervals the committees
meet together as a Comite Confederal. Complete
autonomy remains with each section ; but as they have
been mainly in the same hands, there has been no fric¬
tion, and, up to the present, the C.G.T. has been the
model of a perfectly functioning federal council. It
is true that the intention of the Statutes has not
been perfectly carried out : many syndicats belong to
Bourses and not to an Industrial Federation, and there
are some of which the reverse is true. But all along
the tendency has been towards the completing of
this double relation, and, so far as action is concerned,
the C.G.T. has worked as if the organisation were
complete.

It is now time to examine it in more detail. Its
intention is, throughout, federal. “ At every stage ”,
writes M. Pouget, “ the autonomy of the organism is
complete. . . . The co-ordination arises naturally,
beginning from the bottom. To popular sovereignty
syndicalism opposes the rights of individuals”. It is
very important to realise the emphasis French Syn¬
dicalism lays on starting from the bottom. At every
stage, it asserts the right of the individual ( syndicat ,
Bourse or Federation d’ Industrie) to the greatest possible
autonomy : and it holds that, in so doing, it is following
the line of natural growth. The development by the
working-class of institutions of its own, what M,
Lagardelle calls ‘ Socialism of Institutions ’, is far more
really the central point of its philosophy than any
Bergsonian elan vital. To the wider aspect of this
question we shall have to return later on : at present
we need only notice that the federal principle is ex¬
pressed at every stage of the organisation.

LABOUR IN FRANCE

7i

At the bottom, the real and vital foundation of the
whole fabric, we have the class-conscious proletarian,
who is less the raw material of the organisation than
himself its first and most vital organ. He is a member
directly only of his syndicat, the local association of
his trade, within which it is still possible for the
members to keep adequate check on their representa¬
tives. Beyond membership of his syndicat, the work¬
man has no direct ties : the unit at the next stage is
the syndicat itself, which should become a part locally
of its Bourse du Travail and nationally or regionally of
its Industrial Federation. Here first we encounter the
group principle in action. Just as each individual
syndique, whatever his personal character, counted in
the syndicat as one and no more, so each syndicat,
whatever its character or membership, counts, in the
Bourse or Federation, as one and no more. The syndi¬
cat is now the individual and counts as such. The
principle is the same at the next stage : each Bourse or
each Federation has its representative on its section of
the C.G.T. itself or on the combined Comite Con¬
federal. Only in the Annual Congress the syndicat
becomes once more the unit, and each is entitled to its
single representative.

We have already given our reasons for estimating
the total strength of the C.G.T. at between 500,000
and 600,000, and made some comment on the apparent
smallness of this figure. It should be realised at the
outset that this weakness does not mean that the
C.G.T. represents only a small section of the really
organised workers in France, but that the organised
workers themselves form only a small section of the
industrial population. In proportion to the whole
number of really organised workers, as many adhere
in France to the C.G.T. as in England to any of the

7 2

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

three central bodies.1 The weakness then is that of
the whole Trade Union movement in France, and not
of the C.G.T. within the movement. It may of course
still be due to the policy of the C.G.T., but in that
case it seems remarkable that a rival organisation has
not grown up outside it. The C.G.T. is not yet old
enough to make a rival impossible, especially in
France, where organisations are bom and die with
equal facility. It is far more natural to trace the
weakness of the French movement first to a national
disinclination for combination ; secondly, to the
tendency to keep ' friendly society ’ activities outside
the Unions, and thirdly to the character of French
industry. For French industrial life is not, and still
more was not when the modern Labour movement
arose, by any means so complicated as ours in England.
It preserves a more local character, and, on the whole,
the number of small masters is very large. Aggrega¬
tion in large factories undoubtedly tends to create
strong labour organisations ; and the scattered nature
of much French industry goes a long way towards
accounting for the weakness of Trade Unionism.
It is a further sign of this that Unionism is strongest
and most centralised just where ‘ trustified ’ industry
has won the day. With the growth of centralisation
in French industry the syndicats will certainly grow
stronger.

However, the Reformist party within the C.G.T. is
fond of pointing to its weakness as proving the futility
of its revolutionary policy. Jules Guesde has said :

‘In 1911, the Labour Party had 1,394,402 Trade Union
members, the Trade Union Congress 1,645,507, and the
General Federation of Trade Unions 750,000. They have all
increased since then ; the 1913 Trade Union Congress was
representative of 2,250,000 workers.

LABOUR IN FRANCE

73

“What classes — and judges — Syndicalism as a part
of the world movement is its lack of members ’’ ; but
a very different view is taken by the actual leaders of
the C-G.T. M. Pouget, for instance, writes with satis¬
faction : “ It is just because the syndicats possess this
purely ‘ fighting ’ character that they have not yet at¬
tracted the crowds of workers of whom foreign organisa¬
tions are so proud Numerical weakness is on this
showing itself a source of strength ; and the argu¬
ment might carry more weight were not those who
use it always prompt to chronicle their own increases.
In this country, where immense numbers of Trade
Unionists are attracted merely by ‘ benefits it may
be, on reflection, a surprise that the French syndicats
have been able, almost without benefits, to attract
half a million members. Very few of our Unions,
except in highly skilled trades, could preserve their
stability on low contributions, and purely for the
purpose of industrial warfare. The figures point to a
greater, rather than a less, development of class-
consciousness in France than in this country, where
the question of separating ‘ friendly ’ from ‘ fighting ’
contributions is only just beginning, with the rise of
the Greater Unionism, to attain to real importance.
In France, the dispute is as old as Proudhon.

In 1908, M. Pouget claimed that, out of 5500 real
syndicats ouvriers, 3500 were in one or other section
of the C.G.T., and that many of the rest were jaunes ;
i.e. syndicats run by the employers in the interests of
industrial peace. At this time only 2600 syndicats
were included in the Section of Federations, but it was
estimated that 900 more belonged only to Bourses du
Travail. Even this force, however, would be no more
than a ‘ conscious minority able to succeed in in¬
dustrial movements only by carrying the unorganised

74

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

along with it ; and it is because they recognise this
that the leaders try to make the best of a bad job, of
what one of them calls the “ sheepish apathy ” of the
working-class, and therefore to pride themselves on
being such a minority.

We cannot be too careful to make the meaning of
this theory clear to ourselves. M. Pouget goes so far
as to say : “ There is for the conscious minority an
obligation to act, without paying any attention to the
refractory mass, on pain of being forced to bend the
neck with those who are unconscious ”. Action, class-
consciousness in practice, is made not merely a right,
but a duty : the conscious minority is represented as
creating the society of the future, and therefore as
having a right and an obligation to speak for the whole
working-class and not merely for itself. The ' tyranny
of Trade Unions ’ is thus resolved into justifiable and
necessary leadership, by which the way is shown to
the more backward brethren. That this is in fact the
manner in which French strikes are run seems beyond
doubt ; for the French, if they organise with difficulty
on a permanent basis, are, as M. Griffuelhes 1 says,
peculiarly liable to those “ passing fits of anger ”,
those coleres passageres, which seem to suit the temper
of the Latin races. The minority does seem, in a
large number of cases, to be able to lead the majority ;
for instance, it is estimated by M. Lagardelle that in
1905 nearly a million workers joined in the agitation for
an eight hours’ day. But this power does not justify
rejoicing over weakness on the part of the C.G.T. It
may be better for some purposes not to have in the
Unions a majority intent only on benefits ; but even

1 In his interesting Voyage Revolutionnaire, which gives
much the best idea of the real state of the Labour movement in
France.

LABOUR IN FRANCE

75

if we grant this enormous supposition, the main thing
is still to turn the conscious minority into a majority,
and to despair of doing so is to despair of the human
race. It is over the sacrifices and changes involved in
getting this majority that Revolutionaries and Re¬
formists most often join battle.

This theory of the rights of minorities has had
further curious developments in the constitution of
the C.G.T. We have seen that its organisers have
been at pains in every case to seek out the true ‘ indi¬
vidual ’ and make it the unit of action and representa¬
tion, and that in consequence every syndicat, whatever
its size, is represented at Congress by a single delegate.
By this means, it is urged, the formation of new
units is encouraged, and power is prevented from
falling into the hands of single large and powerful
Federations, as, for instance, the Miners dominate
our Trade Union Congress. With that instructive
example before us, we can hardly fail to give the
French system a measure of sympathy. It was,
however, estimated by a writer in the Reformist
organ, L’Ouvrier Textile, that delegates representing
22,000 voters may command an absolute majority
in conferences representing hundreds of thousands.
Again, M. Guerard wrote in L'Humanite that at
Amiens in 1906, where 200,000 syndiques were repre¬
sented, 45,000 commanded a majority of the votes.
Of course, it is not to be supposed that the parties
are ever really divided in this fashion : the figures
represent merely a conceivable and not an actually
possible situation. But the Reformist section is
never weary of insisting that, overwhelmingly as it
is always defeated in the voting at Congress, it has
none the less a majority behind it in the country.
Again, the Confederal Committee of the C.G.T. is

76

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

composed of one representative for each Federation
of isolated syndicat. Thus, the Federation des
Blanchisseurs with 80 members and the Federa¬
tion du Textile with 20,000 have each one vote, and
a local Syndicat with 20 members is represented
by its delegate just as much as the Syndicat National
des Chemins de Fer, with 45,000. As this committee
elects the General Secretary and has the supreme
control, this form of representation is significant.
M. Niel, the Reformist Secretary of the C.G.T., wrote
of his party in May 1909, when he tendered his resigna¬
tion, “It is necessary for them to conquer in the
Confederal Committee the majority which they
already possess in the country ”. M. Pouget, on the
other hand, estimates that two-thirds of the whole
strength of the C.G.T. are Revolutionaries. It is
not the case, as we might expect, that all the small
syndicats are Revolutionary and all the large ones
Reformist : at Amiens the Railway Workers with
24,000 and the Federation du Livre with 10,000
members were Reformist ; but the Metal Workers
and the Marine Workers with 14,000 and 12,000
were both Revolutionary. Again, the two largest
Federations stand on opposite sides, the Federation
du Batiment with about 40,000 members being among
the most Revolutionary, and the Miners, who number
over 30,000, Reformist. On the whole, it seems
probable that, while the system of voting doubtless
favours the Revolutionaries, the change produced
by Proportional Representation, which the Reformists
demand, would not be great enough to reverse the
position of the parties. Reformism may be gaining
ground : it has certainly not yet conquered the
maj ority.

It may be indeed that the position of the Reformists

LABOUR IN FRANCE

77

is weakened by the little interest many of them take
in federal doings. At Marseilles in 1908 the Miners
though entitled to 58, only sent 37 delegates, the
Railwaymen only 73 out of 269, the Federation du
Livre 50 out of 167. With the single exception of
the Cheminots de I’Est, they remain members of the
C.G.T. ; but they are content to take little part,
save when it suits them, in a policy they cannot
control.

M. Lagardelle has put the case against the Re¬
formists in an epigram. “ Le Reformisme ne voit
dans le reformisme que la reforme.” For him, the
‘ corporate ’ or ‘ Trade Union ’ spirit is “ the end
of all idealism ” ; it denies solidarity, and creates a
“ working-class aristocracy ” which “ only makes
corporate egoism more bitter”. On its own showing,
Reformism aims only at the direct improvement of
the condition of labour, and not at any catastrophic
overthrow of the whole capitalist regime by direct
syndical action. It is opposed to the General Strike
and Sabotage, and, as it aims at making its own
terms with the masters, its policy comes into im¬
mediate conflict with that of the Revolutionaries on
the question of industrial agreements. The Revolu¬
tionaries are as a rule against all ftaix sociale,
against anything that is more than a mere suspension
of hostilities with their natural enemy, the employer ;
in theory they repudiate all agreements, and in
practice they at least claim that no agreement be
concluded for more than a year at the longest, and
reserve to themselves the right to break every under¬
taking on the first favourable opportunity.1 For the

1 The motion of Griffuelhes at Amiens in 1906 (carried by
830 votes to 8) puts the official view of the function the
C.G.T. has to perform. “ In the work of everyday demand,

78

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

Reformists, the strike is only a pis alley ; for the
Revolutionaries, it is at once the method of the
Social Revolution and the most powerful instrument
of working-class education. Occasionally, as in 1905,
the two parties find a satisfactory common pro¬
gramme ; both are equally interested in the shorten¬
ing of the hours of labour, and accordingly they
combined readily in the eight hours’ campaign. But
even here the concord was short. In M. Pouget’s
view, " The formula ‘ Conquest of the Eight Hours’
Day ' has not a narrow and rigidly concrete sense ;
it is a platform of action which broadens out till it
embraces all the conditions of labour ”, “ an educative
formula ”. M. Lagardelle is still more explicit and
calls it “ a perfect platform for extending the notion
of the class-war to all workers ”. “In the struggle
for the eight hours’ day ”, he writes, “ the eight hours
were often forgotten, and the class-war alone remem¬
bered Between two such parties there can as yet
be no permanent accord : either the syndicat is to
be the mere weapon of material advancement within
the capitalist system, or it is to be the fighting and
organising unit of the whole working-class.

It may seem that in Great Britain we have reached
on the question a fair, working compromise, while
in Germany the question has not even arisen. But,
in this country at least, a cleavage that is not
merely between the ‘ common sense ’ and the ‘ im-
possibilist ’ sections does seem to be springing up,
and it is becoming of greater importance to under-

Syndicalism pursues the co-ordination of working-class efforts
and the increase of the well-being of labour by the realisation
of immediate improvements. . . . But this task is only one
side of the work of Syndicalism ; it prepares entire emanci¬
pation, which can only be realised by capitalist expropriation ”.

LABOUR IN FRANCE

79

stand the practical side of a revolutionary Trade
Union programme. As has been the case in France,
the conflict is bound to become more bitter between
these two sections whenever the question of industrial
arbitration comes to the front. It is round the
question of ‘ agreements ’ that ‘ Revolutionary ’ and
‘ Reformist ’ are always bound to come to blows ;
and it was the social legislation of M. Millerand that
first gave rise to the quarrel in France. It is, for
the understanding of the actual situation, important
to realise that the C.G.T. gives no orders and is a
purely advisory body. Syndicats that are in dis¬
agreement with its policy may therefore continue
members of it without conforming to its views, just
as Mr. Havelock Wilson, though an advocate of
compulsory arbitration, can go as a delegate to the
Trade Union Congress here. This course of action
is, in fact, freely followed by such Federations as
the Textile Workers and the Livre, as well as by the
National Syndicat of Miners. The general view of
the C.G.T. on such a matter does not secure a uniform
practice. Even the Revolutionary section has not
been able to maintain in practice an absolute adherence
to the ‘ No Agreements ’ doctrine. It has been
forced instead to assert its clear right to break any
and every agreement at will ; but, as the policy
would be suicidal in practice, it in fact often makes
agreements and sticks to them. The ‘ collective
contract ’ has in the past few years made considerable
progress in France.

Naturally, the Revolutionary or Reformist character
of a syndicat or Federation reacts as well as depends
on its internal organisation. The Revolutionary
bodies are, as a rule, guerilla forces, burdened with as
little as possible beyond their actual fighting equip-

8o

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

ment, and not much concerned with the ‘ friendly '
aspect of Unionism. The Reformists, on the other
hand, tend to levy higher contributions, and to pay
more attention to ‘ benefits The predominance of
the Revolutionary section is largely accounted for by
the extreme reluctance of French workers to pay high
contributions, and, though the recent tendency has
been in nearly every industry to raise these, the
leaders have always to face the greatest reluctance
on the part of the rank and file to accept the slightest
increase. Consequently, there is in most syndicats
very little ‘ mutual aid ’, and generally even such as
there is, is not obligatory on the members. Sickness
and unemployment pay are exceptional, and even
strike pay is seldom given regularly. In 1908 there
were 1073 strikes, of which 837 were conducted by
organised workers ; but in 46 only was regular strike
pay available. Of course, this deficiency is very often
supplied by other means, with which we are rapidly
becoming familiar in this country also : voluntary
contributions are sent to the strikers from workers
in other trades or districts, soupes communistes, such as
the Taximen had in London, are often started by the
Bourses du Travail, and the children of strikers are
boarded out free in other neighbourhoods ; but the
poverty of the movement as a whole goes far towards
accounting for the vogue of sabotage and the sym¬
pathetic strike, as well as for the whole idea of the
Grdve Generate. The C.G.T. itself makes no money
contribution to strikes, and confines itself to advice
and propagandist help. Suggestions are often made
for the starting of Co-operative Societies in connection
with the Unions, but there seems no likelihood that
this will be done, in face of the objection to higher
contributions. It is even rendered more unlikely by

LABOUR IN FRANCE

81

the fusion of the different French Co-operative Societies
into a single body, accomplished only this year, which
seems to make the final defeat of sectional Co-operation.

Each syndicat, we have seen, owes a double allegiance,
and this allegiance is financial as well as spiritual. The
contribution paid by the workman to his local syndicat
is never less than 50 centimes (5d.) a month, and may
rise as high as 4 francs (3s. 4.d.) ; but it is more often
near the lower figure than the higher. The affiliation fee
to the National Federation varies from 10 centimes to
75 centimes and even to 2 francs (id. — 7|d. — is. 8d.)
per member monthly ; but it is on an average from
10 to 60 centimes (id. to 6d.) a month per member.
Besides this, the local syndicat pays the Bourse du
Travail an affiliation fee of from 10 to 40 centimes
(id. to 4d.) a month per member. The central organ¬
isation in turn exacts a double subscription ; from
each Bourse du Travail it takes 5 centimes (-|d.) a
member annually, and from each Federation or
National Syndicat 60 centimes (6d.) monthly for every
hundred members, which works out at nearly |d. a
year per member. Thus the central body, as well
as most of the Federations, is very weak financi¬
ally : in the years 1906-8 the total income of the
section of Bourses was 16,000 francs (£640), and that
of the section of Federations 24,700 francs (£9 88), and
both these sums represented an increase on previous
years. It will be seen, then, that for the most part
the movement gets along without resources, and
depends for its efficiency on anything rather than the
money-bags which play so great a part in British
Trade Unionism. The workers, in most cases, regard
the syndicat purely as a fighting organisation, and
therefore many of the less adventurous refrain from
joining. The mobility of a force that has nothing to
6

82

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

lose is obviously much increased, and strikes become
very much easier to arouse ; but, as a rule, such
strikes are short and sharp, and do not extend over
very wide areas. In such a case, even if no victory
is won, defeat matters comparatively little from a
material point of view. It must, however, be ad¬
mitted that such organisations dissolve as easily as
they arise, and that a single disaster may therefore
be sometimes more fatal to them than to our long-
established Unions with vested interests to preserve.

In a few cases, the position is very different. The
members of the Federation du Livre have long paid in
two francs monthly, and the contribution has recently
been slightly increased. But in return for this they
receive strike pay of 3.50 francs a day for thirteen
weeks, sick and unemployed benefit at the rate of
two francs a day for a maximum of thirty-six days a
year, and viaticum, or travelling allowance when in
search of work. The Textile Workers, again, pay one
franc a month and get strike pay at the rate of two
francs a day. But these are exceptional cases, and
where we find this form of organisation we find also
the Reformist spirit. While the C.G.T. agitated for an
eight hours’ day in 1906, the Federation du Livre spent
600,000 francs on a partially successful campaign for a
day of nine hours. A curious case is that of the F edera-
tion du Batiment, which has the highest dues after the
Livre, and is none the less of the revolutionary party.

On the whole, we can still say without hesitation that
the spirit of French Trade Unionism is against high
contributions. The syndicat still generally regards
itself as a fighting unit, and is prepared to fight with¬
out funds. In 1908, out of 55°° syndicats, only just
over one thousand had ‘ Caisses de Secours Mutuel ’
and only 743 unemployment funds. The intrusion of

LABOUR IN FRANCE

83

' friendly ’ purposes into the syndicats is widely feared
as the beginning of the end of their fighting spirit. “ In
France ”, writes M. Pouget, “we do not scorn mutual
aid, which is the primary form of solidarity, but we
keep it outside the syndicat”. “In strikes”, he sayselse-
where, “ the financial support is in great measure due
to voluntary subscriptions The official view is that
the syndicats should not be overcharged with purposes
other than those of resistance, and that ' Mutuellisme
syndical ’ is “ fatal to the forward march of the whole
proletariat On the other side, the ‘ syndicats mixtes '
of the North do not touch questions of wages, and are
solely occupied with mutuality (‘friendly’ activities).

It is disputable how far this fighting character of
the French syndicats, coupled with their light con¬
tributions, has the effect of keeping down numbers.
It is certain that in Belgium the effect of raising the
contributions was a great increase of members, and
that in both England and Germany vast numbers are
drawn into the Unions almost solely by the desire to
participate in ‘ benefits ’. If we do not argue at once
from these analogies to the French case, it is because
we cannot be certain that the actual state of affairs is
not rather a result than a cause, and does not in fact
answer better the real needs of the French character.
It is unsafe to argue that, because a method clearly
suits England, it must necessarily suit France also.
French Syndicalism has its peculiarly national char¬
acter, and, however much we may be influenced by
it in England, its most national characteristics are
bound to be left behind. These peculiarities are indi¬
vidual and particular; but, while we may discard
them in forming our own national doctrine, it is our
business, if we wish to follow the French movement, to
understand them in a spirit as little insular as possible.

84

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

The quarrel of Revolutionaries and Reformists,
which in industrial action centres as a rule around the
question of high and low contributions, has another
side that we cannot afford to omit. With it are bound
up all the varied aspects of the problem of State inter¬
vention. In Syndicalist denunciations, ‘ corporatism ’
and ‘ interventionism ’ are frequently coupled together.
Both are, according to M. Pouget, “ rampant within
the C.G.T. itself”. It is, Syndicalists declare, the
obvious purpose of the capitalistic State to defeat
revolutionary aims by the granting of more or less
illusory social reforms, of which the legislation of
M. Millerand forms the classical example. J oint boards
of employers and employees, it is said, mix the classes,
and make for an unreal paix sociale, which is the
object of bourgeois Radicals like Waldeck-Rousseau.
Compulsory insurance and compulsory arbitration are
alike opposed on these grounds : the General Com¬
mittee of the C.G.T., reporting on the arbitration
question, said that “ in parliamentarising the strike the
governing classes would kill the legitimate spirit of
revolt which animates the workers”. 0* other pro¬
posals, M. Pouget declares that “ the Government is
minded to grant the syndicate powers of jurisdiction
and trading in the hope of drawing them into the
capitalist ‘ sphere’ ”.

This controversy has two aspects. First, the Syndical¬
ists are at war with the regular Reformists, who wish
to secure improvements in the conditions of labour by
means of legislation. They are also at war with that
section which desires closer co-operation between the
syndicats and the Socialist Party, and looks forward to
the conquest of the fiouvoirs publics as the means of
establishing the new society. Against the first, we have
seen, they advance the view that peaceful settlement

LABOUR IN FRANCE

85

not only leaves the worker no better off materially,
but also kills the spirit of revolt which animates him.
Against the second, a further line of argument is neces¬
sary. " To-day ”, writes M. Lagardelle, “ men believe
less and less in the creative force of the State and the
magic power of Parliamentarism “La lutte de classe
ne pent etre menee que sur le terrain de classe The
State is thought of as a bourgeois institution, to which
it is vain to look for help. “ It is the business of
Syndicalism ”, M. Lagardelle writes, “ to be self-
sufficient

All the same, the syndicats do not wholly repudiate
government intervention. They insist rather that it
shall intervene under compulsion and as the inferior
party. “ Useful laws can be won by Direct Action ” is
their guiding principle, and M. Sorel has written in his
Reflexions sur la Violence that "the determining factor in
politics is the poltroonery of the Government ”. This
method of compelling intervention we find pursued in
a series of agitations. In 1902 begins the agitation
for the monopoly of placement (Labour Exchange work)
and inspection, resulting in 1903 in the closing by the
Government of the private Labour Exchanges — which,
it is true, were often able to open again under other
names. Shortly afterwards, a similar campaign was
started in favour of State technical instruction, and the
classical example is, of course, the agitation for an eight
hours' day in 1905-6. Since the arrest of M. Griffuelhes
and others in 1906, relations with the Government have
been too strained for a repetition of such tactics, and
the line of agitation has been more strictly professional.

A kindred and even more pressing question for the
Syndicalists is the definition of the proper relation
between the syndicats and the Socialist Party. The
earlier history of French Unionism is very largely that

86

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

of its gradual emancipation from undue subjection to
pseudo-Marxian State Socialism. The attempts of M.
Guesde to make the syndicats mere election agencies of
the Socialists still rankle in the minds of Syndicalists,
and even find their echo in the C.G.T. Congresses,
where M. Renard of the Textile Federation regularly
proposes reaffiliation with the Socialist Party,1 and is
as often overwhelmingly defeated. “ Marx ”, says M.
Lagardelle, “ always set over against the fatalism of
capital the liberty of the proletariat. . . . Guesde”,
on the other hand, “gave his conception a one-sided and
rigid form, taking account only of economic necessity,
and failing to recognise working-class freedom ”. The
Syndicalists interpret Marx’s saying that “ the eman¬
cipation of the workers must be the act of the workers
themselves ” as meaning that emancipation can only
come to them organised as workers, “ en tant que
frodncteurs ”, “ sur le terrain de classe ”. ‘ Class ’, they

hold, is a natural division, ‘ party ’ artificial and
intellectual. “ Democracy mixes the classes ”, And
they maintain further that any party, ‘ Socialist ’,
‘ Labour or ' Radical ’, will equally lose touch with the
workers and adopt the character of the terrain on which
it is compelled to act. They quote with appreciation
the works of Nietzsche: ‘‘The State, what is that?
Open your ears. The State is the coldest of monsters.
It lies coldly. ‘ I, the State,’ it says, ‘ I am the people ’.
A lie. Wherever there is a people, it does not under¬
stand the State, it detests it.”

This determination to destroy the State is combined,
in many writers, with a determination to use it while it
exists. “ Incontestably ”, M. Lagardelle writes, “ for
its constitution and development, working-class demo¬
cracy has need, a while yet, of political democracy. . . .

1 The motion was lost by 724 votes to 34 at Amiens (1906).

LABOUR IN FRANCE

87

But it makes use of political democracy only the better
to destroy it Taking the view that economic power
necessarily precedes and conditions political power, he
regards the function of a Socialist Party in Parliament
as indeed real, but as temporary and subordinate.

“ The party now seems only an auxiliary organism of
which the usefulness is certain, but the power of action
restricted.” It is exceedingly difficult in reading M.
Lagardelle to ascertain what is the nature of the sphere
of usefulness he finds for a Socialist Party. “ The task
of a Socialist Party in Parliament ”, he writes, “ can
only be to aid by legislation the work of the proletariat
in organising itself autonomously ”. But even to give
this help effectively — and we may admit it to be the
greatest service possible — seems to involve that very
conquete des pouvoirs publics which M. Lagardelle is
always denouncing so fiercely. In his view, “ Syndical¬
ism does not deny parties, but only their ability to
transform the world ”, and thus, even if the conquest
of public power were to be accomplished, the function
of a Socialist Government would still be purely auxiliary
and could not of itself effect the transformation of
society. ” If ”, M. Sorel wrote in L Avenir Socialiste
des Syndicats, “ the workers triumphed without having
accomplished the moral evolutions which are indis¬
pensable to them, their rule would be abominable and
the world would be plunged again into sufferings,
brutalities and injustices as great as those of the
present ”. And M. Lagardelle himself says that
“ Syndicalism has always laid it down as a principle
that bourgeois institutions will be eliminated only in
proportion as they are replaced by working-class
institutions ”. The essence of the Social Revolution is
held to lie in the creation of a new set of working-class
institutions and ideas. M. Lagardelle holds that “ for

88

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

Marx what always differentiates social classes is to be
found in their institutions and their ideology

It is clear that, on such a view, any party which is
compelled to work within the cadre of bourgeois society
must take on a bourgeois character and adapt itself to
bourgeois institutions. “ The rupture between bour¬
geois society and the Labour movement finds free
play only in the sphere of production . . . “ The
Labour movement has no sense-organ except as it
develops its own institutions at the expense of capi¬
talist institutions ”.1 If, then, the whole Labour move¬
ment is not to be watered down into mere social
reform, it is essential that it should keep itself clear
of all party divisions, and insist continually on the
one real division — the class-war. The efforts of the
Socialist Party to recover control over the Syndicalist
movement have proved fruitless ; but it is interesting,
in France as in Italy, to see how far the Socialists have
been prepared to go in the attempt at reconciliation.
M. Lagardelle has called the ‘ Integralism ’ of the Italian
Socialist, Enrico Ferri, “ an attempt to reconcile con¬
traries ”, ard it is abundantly clear that the Socialist
Party has generally attempted to please all parties by
juxtaposing, in a single resolution, the views of every
section, without any coherent attempt to work out the
relations between them. At Limoges in 1906, at the
Socialist Conference, M. Jaures carried a long motion
from which the following are characteristic passages :

“ The Congress, convinced that the working-class will
not be able toenfranchise themselves fully except by the
combined force of political action and syndical action,
by syndicalism going as far as the general strike, and
by the conquest of the whole political power, with a
view to the general expropriation of capitalism. . . .

1 M. Lagardelle.

LABOUR IN FRANCE

89

“ Convinced that this double action will be so much
the more efficacious as the political and the economic
organism have their complete autonomy. . . .

“ Invites the militants to do their best to dissipate
all misunderstanding between the C.G.T. and the
Socialist Party”.

Already, the old Guesdist attempt at complete
subordination of the syndicats to the Party is given
up, and the Socialists are willing to make sacrifices
even to secure a small measure of co-operation. Were
the leaders of the Syndicalist movement all like M.
Lagardelle, still half Socialists, such an entente would
be difficult enough ; but when the character of most
of them is taken into account, it becomes, for the
present at least, unthinkable. It is obvious that
M. Lagar delie’s denial of the permanent character of
the State is capable of being put far more strongly,
and that it is only a step from the denial of the State
in the future to the denial of it in the present, from
the refusal to recognise its theoretical obligation to
the practical refusal to have more than a necessary
minimum to do with it. Syndicalism of the type
favoured by M. Lagardelle passes over naturally into
the Syndicalist Anarchism of MM. Pouget and
Griffuelhes. We are thus led on inevitably from
examining the relation of Syndicalism to the Socialist
Party to study its views about the State in general.

It is one of the most frequent causes of quarrel
between Revolutionaries and Reformists in the
syndicats that the Reformists accuse their opponents
of introducing anarchist politics under the pretext
of taking no part in politics. Niel in his letter re¬
signing the Secretaryship of the C.G.T., speaks of
unity as the task “ of those syndicats which no more
want Anarchism than any other form of politics in

go

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

the syndicats ” ; and the Reformist manifesto, signed
among others by Cordier {M incurs), Cleuet {Em¬
ployes), Gervaise ( Travailleurs dc l’ Et at), Guerard
( Chemins de Fer), Keiifer ( Livre ), Renard {Textile),
Thil {Lithographic), and Niel himself, starts the
Reformist Comite d’ Union Syndicaliste as a protest
against “ the introduction of anarchist politics into
the syndicats ” . Already in Pelloutier the anarchist
view is fully developed, and it is largely due to his
influence that it still prevails widely in the C.G.T.
There is an interesting French Anarchist publication
addressed to the Syndicalists under the title Aux
Anarchistes qui signorent, and the professedly Anarchist
section is for ever trying to capture the movement for
its own purposes. The C.G.T. in its Statutes (I. i, 2)
professes to “ group, outside every political school,
all workers who are conscious of the class-war to
agitate for the abolition of the Wage-System and
the ‘ master-class ’ ; and this very easily passes over
into direct refusal to recognise any obligations other
than those which are owed to the working-class itself.
The object of Syndicalism is, in the words of M.
Berth, “ to refer everything to production, to sub¬
ordinate to production all unproductive social func¬
tions ”. It is not a far cry from this to the ‘ Don’t
vote ’ campaign which has been started within the
C.G.T. itself.

Even against those who do not belong to the
Anarchist section of the C.G.T. the Reformists have
a natural ground of complaint. M. Lagardelle himself
is never weary of saying that “ direct action is political
action ”. Political neutrality has, he says, two senses :
the neutrality the Reformists desire is corporate
neutrality, which leaves each syndicat to make its
own terms, and has no thought of overthrowing

LABOUR IN FRANCE

9i

capitalist society. This is what M. Guesde calls the
‘ ornidre corporative’ of Trade Unionism. But M.
Guesde was wrong in thinking, because at the time
of his ascendancy “ he saw before him only moderate
syndicats, that every syndicat is fated to be moderate ”.
The proper political neutrality of the syndicats
ranges itself with no party in the State, but contents
itself with “ sa politique propre” . The general strike
is essentially a political act, having for its aim the
creation of a new form of political society, answering
to the new ‘ droit ouvrier ’ , the new ideology of the
working-class. M. Lagardelle therefore agrees wholly
with the Anarchists where the action of the syndicats
is concerned : he differs from them when they go
on to demand that the acts of individual members
shall be interfered with. The ‘ ne pas voter ’ campaign,
he points out, places the Anarchists themselves on
the political level ; in occupying themselves with
parliamentary affairs, even by way of opposition,
they are neglecting their proper function of organising
the class-war within the syndicats. The Congress of
Amiens in 1906, while declaring that "syndicalism
recognises neither the elector of any party nor the
believer in any religious or philosophical faith”,
wisely left the actual members of the syndicats free
to take what political action they pleased, provided
they did not introduce politics into the syndicats.
In spite of this, Syndicalism has enough natural
affinity to Anarchism for directly anti-political
tendencies to be continually showing themselves.

This has been especially the case with ‘ anti¬
militarism ’ and ‘anti-patriotism’. The assertion of
the international solidarity of the working-class
passes easily into the denial of its national obliga¬
tions. ‘‘The proletariat”, said Marx, ‘‘has no

92

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

countiy ” ; and the Section de Bourses du Travail
de la Seine puts the same point of view more pictur¬
esquely. “ The country of the workers is their own
and their family’s belly. ... La classe, c’est la
patrie ’’. Here again, the line has been found hard
to draw between neutrality and opposition, and
refusal on the part of the syndicats to concern them¬
selves in their corporate capacity with patriotism
and militarism have passed readily into anti-patriotism
and violent anti-militarism. “ Don’t enlist ! ” has
been transformed successively into “ Don’t shoot ! ”
and “ Desert ! ” and the Sou du Soldat, which could
be regarded as a harmless expression of a solidarity
that cannot be interrupted by conscription, has
become the most powerful weapon of direct anti¬
patriotism. But there seemed to be signs, till the
new militaristic policy of M. Poincare revived it,
that the anti-militarist propaganda was slackening
its hold, and that the recognition was spreading that
such matters are not after all questions syndicates.

Paradoxically, the very internationalism of the
French movement has sometimes brought with it the
penalty of isolation. The French have been too
vehemently anti-patriotic and international for the
Unions of other countries, and when anti-militarism
and the General Strike were definitely refused a place
on Ihe agenda of the International Trade Union Con¬
ference, the C.G.T. refused to take any part in it, though
they have since made up the quarrel. In the minds of
French Syndicalists, patrie and propriete are insepar¬
able ideas : the State and the army are there to pro¬
tect property, and must be swept out of the way before
property can be abolished.

Adopting this attitude towards the State, the C.G.T.
is led, naturally, not only to place all its reliance on

LABOUR IN FRANCE

93

Direct Action by the workers themselves in their
organisations, but also to attribute to this Direct
Action a quite peculiar meaning. Direct Action is
for them at once a great educative influence and the
actual method of capitalist expropriation. It has
therefore taken on an almost religious aspect, and has
felt the need of providing itself with a theology. The
dogma of the General Strike is the formulation of the
philosophy of Direct Action in a popular and com¬
pelling manner. The General Strike is presented as
historically in the future ; but the workers are meant
to recognise in it the type of the strikes of the present.
“The Revolution’’, writes M. Pouget, “is no longer
considered as a catastrophe destined to break out
some near or distant day ; it is conceived as an act
realised every day ” . And similarly M. Beith says .
“ The catastrophe, according to the syndicats , will not
be the mystic Revolution, automatic and idle, but
the supreme effort of working-class action coming to
crown a long series of patient and toilsome efforts
Every strike is more or less general, and the same
conception embraces all : from the petty strike in
a single workshop to the local, regional, national and
international general strikes, all are touched with
something of the glamour which attaches to the one
great ‘ social general strike ’ in which is envisaged the
complete overthrow of capitalist society. It is not
necessary to go into the complicated theory of social
myths and the analogy of the Second Coming which
M. Sorel has woven round the conception of the
General Strike : we are concerned only to notice how
extraordinarily compelling the idea is, how, with all
its catastrophic completeness, it still retains that
‘ everydayness ’ which is necessary for a good pro¬
pagandist doctrine.

94

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

The General Strike that is realised daily is then one
in idea with the Direct Action of the French Labour
movement. M. Pouget tells us that “ this conception
of the strike gives to conflicts a growing bitterness of
c lass- warf are ” ; that in every strike the workers
seem to see the Social Revolution foreshadowed. But
this does not prevent them from making on capital
temporary and provisional demands. The General
Strike, we are told, " has its reformist aspect It has
the double function of restoring the class-structure of
society which democracy obliterates, and of procuring
the improvement of the lot of the working-class. From
the Syndicalist point of view, failure in either of these
respects would destroy the value of this Direct
Actionism. Unless the strike has a revolutionary aim
extending beyond mere Reformism, it is the end of
idealism, and can at any rate be no substitute for
Parliamentary Action. If, on the other hand, it is
purely revolutionary and secures for the workers no
temporary advantages, it is equally useless ; for in
that case it would be impossible not only to organise a
majority of the workers in the syndicate, but also ever
to persuade the unorganised to go on strike. The
C.G.T. depends on winning partial advantages for its
power to lead as a conscious minority.

With the advocacy of the General Strike is coupled
by many of the leaders that of Sabotage. This form
of Direct Action is as a rule very ill understood ; and
in fact the name is used to cover several distinct
methods. Sabotage in the most general sense means
the use of any and every weapon against the master¬
class. The strike in France not taking the form of a
trial of depth between purses, the ‘ strike with folded
arms 1 is naturally supplemented by other means.

1 La greve aux bras crois&s .

LABOUR IN FRANCE

95

Industrial disputes are regarded as definitely acts in
an unbroken war with the employers ; and it is held
that, just as all agreements may be broken, all canons
of right and wrong may in such cases be disregarded.
Bourgeois morality may proclaim certain acts to be
offences against society ; but there is no need for the
working-class to take any notice of bourgeois ideas.
They are, it is said, working out a new morality of
their own, a half-Nietzschean, half- Anarchist morality
of revolt which throws aside the old ‘ slave-morality’.
Theoretically, all means that are expedient are held
to be j ustified ; and, if in practice this does not amount
to very much, it is a theory that is at any moment
capable of development.1 The importance of sabotage
seems even to be declining as the organisations grow
older. M. Jouhaux, the present Secretary of the
C.G.T., explaining the dangers of using it blindly,
says that it is only “ incidental ” and that it should
only be used when circumstances demand it. Sabotage
may then be regarded as a characteristic, though
subordinate, method of the Labour organisations in
France and as the outcome of French methods of
industrial warfare. But underneath this one name,
many things are only superficially unified. Sabotage
may take a number of forms, varying from the ' Ca’
canny ’ of Scottish invention to violent destruction of
the instruments of production, which is more in
harmony with American methods. The motto “ a
bad day’s work for a bad day’s pay ”,2 in itself not so
revolutionary, may be extended to cover any act from
slacking to dynamiting ; but in itself it implies no such
extension. There is all the difference in the world

1 Just as the militant Suffragists, being wronged by Society,
hold themselves free to make war on it.

2 A mauvaise paye, mauvais travail.

96

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

between the ‘ stop in ’ strike — the refusal to work
more than so many hours unaccompanied by actual
stoppage — and such acts as destroying machinery ;
and again between such an attack on property and the
wrecking of trains, which is an attack on life. The
herding of all these dissimilar courses of action under a
single name is fruitful of misunderstanding. At one
extreme, men may, to secure a shorter day, work so
slowly as to make long hours unprofitable ; they may
even, for the same end, follow the classic example of
the Paris barbers, who shaved the entire heads of all
customers who appeared after what they demanded
should be closing time ; they may, with a less savage
humour, imitate the Italian railwaymen, and hold up
all trains by literal obedience to all regulations. All
such acts, even those of the second class, which are
rare, are a very different matter from the actual
destruction of machinery or life. It is quite possible
for a worker to put into a machine something that
will put it out of action, or to take away a vital piece
of it in his pocket ; and by this means, it is possible
to prevent blacklegs from being used to break a strike.
It is even possible to proceed to more wholesale methods
of destruction, and all these methods may be used
either as alternatives or as helps to 3 stoppage. But
the whole of this last class, besides being usually in¬
expedient, is either on the border-line of justifiability
or entirely outside it. In America, where industrial
methods are always brutal, such acts are often justified ;
but in a civilised country, certain canons of civilised
warfare should be observed on both sides.

A particularly interesting form of sabotage is that
by which work is done slowly, but very well. The
journal of the Building trade, Le Travailleur du
Batiment, recommends it to the workers in these

LABOUR IN FRANCE

97

words : “ Camarades, sabotons bien les hcures du

travail, en faisant de l’ art dans nos metiers rcspectifs
This appeal to commit sabotage against the jerry-
builder, “ by turning out art in their respective
trades ”, is one which, could it be organised, would
be open to no complaints on social grounds. It,
in fact, meets the complaint made by the theorists
of Syndicalism, MM. Sorel and Berth, that most
forms of sabotage lower the morality of the workers.
The essence of Syndicalism, they say, is to be a
philosophy of production ; it depends on making
the syndicats fit to control industry, and must, there¬
fore, be imbued with a keen sense of the dignity
and sanctity of work : anything which degrades the
worker as such is therefore the direct negation of
the ideal of self-governing industry. The intellectuals
generally condemn ‘ sabotage ’, largely on these
grounds ; but it seems to retain a strong hold, and
is indeed bound to do so while the syndicats remain
poor, and strikes retain their sporadic character.
Methods of ‘ irritation ’ go naturally along with such
movements ; but the prevalence of sabotage in France
has been much exaggerated by the stress generally
laid on it in books about Syndicalism.

Two minor methods of Direct Action are worth
a short mention. The ‘ boycott ’ is used in two
ways, both by consumers, abstaining from a particular
make of goods, and by producers, refusing to work
for a particular firm ; the ‘ label ’ or marque syndicate
has also developed considerably in a few trades,
and the mark of the Livre may be seen on most
Syndicalist literature. The label generally signifies
work done by syndiques, but sometimes only work
done under Trade Union conditions of labour. Neither
of these, however, is of great importance.

7

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

98

This philosophy of Direct Action may perhaps be
described as the irreducible minimum of Syndicalist
thought. That, in acting together, the workers are
taking the first step towards constructing a new
order of society, is a conception common to all sections
of the movement. But in the further development
of their views, the Syndicalists stand at many different
stages of speculation, and adopt many different lines
of thought. On such practical questions as the
relation of Syndicalism to the Co-operative move¬
ment, or such philosophical questions as the precise
theoretical basis of Syndicalism or the need for such
a basis, there are wide differences. The movement
as a whole is apt to give the impression that it is at
the same time feverishly protesting that prediction
is useless and impossible, and continually predicting.
M. Sorel’s later work is a vigorous denunciation of
the methods of prediction which he employed in his
first book : Pelloutier, writing in 1901, was con¬
cerned to predict rather elaborately the future structure
of society ; MM. Pataud and Pouget more recently
have issued a detailed Syndicalist Utopia, while at
the same time, M. Pouget himself is fond, in his other
works, of insisting on the futility of prediction. It
is thus rather difficult to determine how far, in a
study of the C.G.T., we ought to take notice of the
views its various supporters hold concerning the
future of society. We may at least allow ourselves
to notice the unanimity of the Syndicalist writers
who have actually allowed themselves to be drawn
into prediction. As early as 1896, we find in a report
on the future function of the Bourses du Travail,
prepared by the Bourse of Nimes, the idea that the
Bourse is the local government unit of the future.
Doubtless, this view was due to the influence of

LABOUR IN FRANCE

99

Pelloutier, whose views, as afterwards given in his
Histoire des Bourses du Travail, published after his
death in 1902, definitely set the type for theories
of the future structure of society. In the same year,
a series of reports on the subject was submitted to
the Congress of Montpellier. They revealed entire
agreement upon the main points. Property, it was
generally agreed, should belong not to the particular
syndicat, but to the collectivity, and should only be
used by the syndicats. A still more important point
of agreement is that, in every case, the reports made
the Bourse du Travail and not the Industrial Federa¬
tion, the local and not the national unit, the centre
of activity. All the reports insist on the need for
decentralisation, and recommend the strengthening of
the Bourses du Travail and the weakening of the
central government into a mere federal committee.
The view of Marx that the syndicats are to the pro¬
letariat what the communes were to the bourgeoisie
undergoes an important practical development when
the Bourse du Travail, rather than the isolated
syndicat, is considered as the true social individual.

We come now to the close of our general examina¬
tion into Trade Unionism in France. It is, no doubt,
extremely difficult, on the strength of what has been
said, to discover how far its theories are carried into
practice, and to what extent they really differentiate
it from the movement in other countries. It is
inevitable, in any discussion of the French move¬
ment, that the theory should emerge with far greater
distinctness and coherence than the practice ; for
the C.G.T. has throughout, in spite of its rejection
of theory, been directed in accordance with general
views. Its main idea has been throughout that
centralisation is fatal, and that the autonomy of the

100

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

organism must be preserved at every stage. Carrying
out this idea, it refrains from becoming, except once
in a way, as in the recent strike against war, a
directing body. It leaves to the local or national
units in each industry the determination of all move¬
ments. A further result of this theory is that no
adequate statistics are kept, and that it is conse¬
quently impossible to present on paper any intel¬
ligible account of the actual doings of Labour in
France. A few great strikes stand out ; but it is
very difficult to judge how the advances made
correspond with those all the world over. In the
next chapter, however, we shall attempt to make
some further comments upon the practice, as well
as on the theory, of French Syndicalism.

CHAPTER IV

COMMENTS ON THE FRENCH LABOUR MOVEMENT

M. Griffuelhes, one of the leaders of the C.G.T., in
his V oyage Revolutionnaire, from which we have already
quoted, surveys the Labour movement with a less
partial eye than most leaders are willing to turn upon
their own handiwork. He is far from reaching the
optimistic conclusions which generally inspire the
friends of the C.G.T. : instead, he sees everywhere
disorganisation, a floating unrest unaccompanied by
any steadfast purpose, and a disposition to be over¬
elated at the least success and disheartened at the
slightest reverse. Of such stuff a strong movement is
not made, and M. Griffuelhes freely admits that, save
in certain districts, the C.G.T. is weak. This weakness,
however, is a weakness of solidarity in general : Re¬
formist methods prevail no more than Revolutionary,
and the labouring class is scattered, dispirited and hope¬
less. Sometimes, he tells us, this lack of organisation
is due to the slight concentration of industry in certain
departments.1 In these districts, “ the conflicts have
never extended beyond a single occupation ”, and there
have been no great and inspiring struggles. In con¬
sequence, there is no strong or permanent syndical
movement. There are only “ passing bursts of anger ”,

1 For instance, Cher, Indre, Haute-Garonne, Pyrenees,
Gironde, Charentes, Deux-Sevres.

IOI

102

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

such as are congenial to the Latin temperament. In
other cases, as in the East, especially in Meurthe-et-
Moselle, an organisation has been built up in the past,
only to vanish with the first defeat. Where there were
3000 unionists in the district round Nancy in 1905, there
were only 100 after the unsuccessful strikes of that year.
In Brittany, where Unionism arrived late, it at once
made great strides ; but there too progress soon
ceased, save in the building trade. In Franche Comte
there has been no conflict since 1899 ; yet it is a great
industrial district. In yet other districts, political
Socialism is strong, and the syndicats have been
captured for Socialist propaganda, as in the Pas-de-
Calais and the North generally, among the miners and
weavers. “ The North ”, M. Griffuelhes says, “ groans
under the burden of domination of concentrated
industry ” ; but “ priests and politicians have taken
good care not to teach it to reason ”. In the South,
Limoges and Bordeaux are both devoted to politics ;
and M. Griffuelhes goes so far as to lay down as a
general rule that “ where electoral life is vigorous, the
Union movement is weak ”. The quarrel between the
Socialist Party and the C.G.T. has certainly done the
syndicats harm in many districts, and, until the quarrel
can be patched up and the two go on their way friendly,
though independent, there seems little hope of im¬
provement.

For other districts M. Griffuelhes is more hopeful.
He does not deal with Paris, which is of course the centre
of the activity of the C.G.T., but of Bourges, for
instance, he speaks with enthusiasm. Toulon too is
well organised, especially the dockyards, though there,
as in other maritime towns, there is opposition between
the State dockyard workers and unionists in other
trades. In Marseilles too he finds Unionism vigorous

FRENCH LABOUR MOVEMENT

103

among the port workers, after a period of decline. In
Lyons the syndicats, after being weakened by politics,
are again growing strong. In Rennes the growth is so
rapid as to arouse doubts of its stability.

The impression left by M. Griffuelhes’ book, from
which these are only a few instances, is that the whole
' syndical ’ organisation of France, save in a few in¬
dustries, is very fluid and unstable. There are constant
advances and declines : syndicats easily go out of
existence after a struggle, and are easily born again
a short time after. In certain industries, as in the
Textile, Mining and Printing trades, there is greater
stability ; but this, as a rule, goes along with the
Reformist spirit. The happy-go-lucky methods of the
C.G.T. do not suit stable organisations, and in reaction
against them, the stronger syndicats are often driven
too far on the road to ‘ social peace ’. There are un¬
doubtedly many characteristic traits of Syndicalism
which persist only through the imperfection of its
organisation, though a great parade has been made of
them in panegyrics on Direct Action.

But, even if this comparative weakness of Trade
Unionism in France is admitted, it will not follow that
it is the method which is wrong, or that the C.G.T.
has done nothing to benefit the workers. It is at least
clear that the weakness is to some extent paralleled and
balanced by a similar lack of organisation on the side
of the masters. If the small workshop often prevents
the men from organising with ease, it has the same
effect upon the employers’ power of concerted re¬
sistance ; and, in judging the C.G.T., we must always
bear in mind the large number of small masters who still
survive in many trades. The effect of having such a
class of employers to deal with is that the conclusion
of agreements becomes far more difficult, and this, as

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

104

well as a deliberate avoidance of ‘ social peace ’, may
account for much in the methods of the C.G.T. Some’
of the opposition to conciliation and arbitration is no
more than making a virtue of necessity, and, in fact,
the latest statement of the policy of the C.G.T. does not
pronounce decidedly against all agreements. M. Jou-
haux writes in Le Syndicalisms Frangais (1913) :

“ Conciliation should be only an incident and not a
means of action. When the worker sees that, by this
method, advantages can be gained, he should have
recourse to it. But never at any moment should he
dream that it is the form for the struggle of Labour to
assume

This is a considerable modification of statements
that were freely made a few years back, and it is largely
due to the improved facilities for conciliation which
recent industrial developments have brought. To
arbitration, by which is meant compulsory arbitration,
the C.G.T. remains as opposed as ever. National
agreements are almost unknown in France ; local
agreements are in fact very common, and the C.G.T.
does not really oppose them.

Opinion then, in the C.G.T. itself, is tending to
modify the rigour of revolutionary doctrines which
always contained a large element of bluster. The
French movement, while retaining its distinguishing
features, is being modified by experience, and growing
more tolerant of judging particular problems on their
merits. It is being realised that revolutionary ardour
cannot make up for lack of numbers, and, above all,
that it is hard to keep up for long. The need for greater
permanence is being admitted, and the disciplinary
demands that organisation makes are being met in a
more acquiescent spirit. This change is going on

FRENCH LABOUR MOVEMENT

105

gradually and without fuss or noise ; but it may well
be that there will emerge from it a movement which will
be at once strong and revolutionary. The French
workers will not throw over their idealism, even if they
learn the lessons Germany and England have to teach
them in organisation. The C.G.T. will emerge strength¬
ened, but not transformed : it will not abandon its
characteristic doctrines, but will mould them to meet
practical requirements. And, when they have done
this, they may well have the finest Trade Union
movement in Europe.

It is a favourite assertion on the part of all sorts of
people that the C.G.T. has failed lamentably to amelio¬
rate the position of the workers. Bare juxtaposition
of very imperfect statistics of hours worked in certain
industries in Germany, France and England is a
favourite method of throwing discredit on the French
movement. It is no donbt true that in most cases
the hours worked in France are much longer than those
in vogue in Germany, and even the demands of the
French workers often allow a longer day than the
German actually works ; but such figures by them¬
selves prove nothing. It is indisputable that there
has been in France of late years a considerable rise in
wages and a considerable fall in the working-day.
The Bucherons du Cher et du Centre have reduced their
hours from 15 and 16 to 11 and 10, have raised their
wages 40 or 50 per cent, and have secured a collective
contract. The Postal Workers have secured an eight
hours’ day and a five-franc minimum. The vineyard
strikes in 1904-5 secured an advance of 25 to 30
per cent, in wages, and examples could easily be multi¬
plied.1 On the side of legislation, the C.G.T. can

1 See L. Jouhaux, Le Syndicalisms Frangais, pp. 44 ff.
E. Pouget, La C.G.T.

io6

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

fairly claim to have brought about not only the closing
of the bureaux de placement in 1903, but also the legisla¬
tion of Sunday closing in May 1906, when a few months
earlier the Senate had rejected it by a large majority.
Not only has the actual number of strikes continually
increased, but the percentage of complete successes
has also been going up slowly and the percentage of
complete failures going down rapidly. How much
of this success should be attributed to the C.G.T. and
how much to the commercial condition of France can
hardly be determined ; but we can at any rate see that
the mere assertion that the Syndicalist movement has
failed finds no support in recent labour statistics.

On its more revolutionary side, the success of the
strike policy is more doubtful.1 Nor do any very
tangible advantages seem to have attached to the
displays of ' King ’ Pataud and the Paris electricians ;
these strikes are to be regarded as dress rehearsals for
the supposed coming catastrophe, successful propa¬
gandist demonstrations, but no more.

The Reformist argument against the General Strike
policy has considerable force. The Federation du
Livre balloted against it in 1908 by a majority of six
to one, and the Textile Conference rejected it on the
ground that in its own industry “ such an action might
have the effect of annihilating the embryo of organisa¬
tion (35,000 federated out of 900,000 textile workers)
which has so far been realised with infinite pains”.
The force of this argument finds support in what

1 I lie General Strike called after the successful Postal Strike
in 1909 to support a second cessation was very little responded
to, and was the immediate cause of the resignation of Niel,
the Reformist who had been elected Secretary of the C.G.T.
a few months earlier by a majority of one vote. Niel had a
very wide following within the C.G.T. in opposing the General
Strike.

FRENCH LABOUR MOVEMENT

107

Griffuelhes tells us of the strikes of the Marseilles
dockers in 1902-4. 1 In 1902 and 1903 there were
successful movements. In 1904 the men struck again
without sufficient consideration, and their organisation
was almost swept away in their defeat. Similarly,
the organisation of the Nantes dockers disappeared
entirely after the unsuccessful strike of 1907. ‘ Easy

go ’ is so much the rale with French working-class
organisations, held together by no ties of vested con¬
tributions, that the sympathetic strike may very
easily be fatal even to a comparatively strong
organisation.

Most nonsense has been talked about French strikes
by the theorists, who have pretended to see, in every
dispute, the realisation of their pet theories about the
class-struggle. It is no doubt possible for a strike in
favour of a definite reform to have a ‘ revolutionary
background ’, more or less consciously realised ; but
it would be an error to suppose that this background
as a rule makes much practical difference. M. Sorel
and even the leaders of the C.G.T. may formulate what
theories of the ' general strike that is being realised
every day ’ they please ; they will not by this means
very largely alter the ordinary course of strikes in
France. The revolutionary background is at most a
fortunate incident ; it is not the raison d’etre of the
strike. The strike possesses in France the character it
has, not because the C.G.T. says that is what it should
be, but because, in the circumstances, it must be such
as it is. Isolated local syndicats, almost without
funds, striking to remedy a definite grievance, are

1 The parallel with the London Dock Strikes of 191 1 and 1912
is close and significant. Such ill-considered movements seem
to be characteristic of the rougher and more casual kinds of
labour.

io8

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

bound to pursue the rather violent and disorderly
methods associated with Syndicalism. Innumerable
parallels could be found for such methods in the early
history of English Trade Unionism, and, in that case,
we can see that they were the fruits, not of choice, but
of necessity. The strikes are what they are because
the syndicats are jealous of their local autonomy, and
above all because they are weak. It may be that
strength brings with it dangers, and that the French
syndicats, with all their weakness, are not inefficient ;
but there is no reason to credit them with a great
refusal on principle to become rich and strong. Theory
always distorts the truth by rationalising it ; and this
has been very much the case with the theory and
practice of Direct Action.

A further cause of French strikes preserving their
character of violence is to be ffiund in the state of the
law. At this time, we find it hard to realise how much
disorder we are saved by the legalisation of picketing.
The French law on this point is highly unsatisfactory,
and it is impossible to have any deterrent effect on
blacklegs without resorting to more violent methods.
Accordingly, the C.G.T. practises the chasse anx renards,
and often comes into conflict with the police on account
of the measures it adopts to frighten away blacklegs.
Sabotage of all sorts is largely accounted for by the
difficulty French unionists find in preventing ‘ scabs ’
from taking their places during a strike. An altera¬
tion of the law on this point would certainly produce
Deneficent results, and would be a great source of
strength to the syndicats as well.

The views of the Textile Workers concerning the
General Strike have already been quoted, and reason
has been given for believing that any prolonged attempt
at a general strike at present would be very dangerous

FRENCH LABOUR MOVEMENT

109

to the existing syndicats. The recent single day’s
strike against war by no means succeeded as its
organisers had hoped ; and it is likely to have at least
the effect of making clear to the C.G.T. that the day
for such a strike is not yet. Even the sympathetic
strike, or grive de solidarity, when used on a large scale,
is dangerous to the weaker syndicats, and is not to be
undertaken lightly. ‘ Sympathy ’ is as a rule far more
useful when it takes the form of voluntary contributions
from supporters in other industries and localities.

A f urther cause of weakness, as M. Lagardelle has
said, is to be found in the lack of well-paid perman¬
ent officials. French Trade Union officials are not
numerous, and are very badly paid. As a result,
much necessary work is not done, and men of national
experience are few and far between, save in one or two
industries. It is true that the extreme democracy of
the C.G.T. has so far, in spite of the power of every
organisation to recall its delegates at a moment’s notice,
had the effect of securing the permanence of its officials.
“ It delegates to its administrators, who are chosen
by sure means and under strong control, lasting and
uncontested powers”. But these conditions are only
imperfectly realised : the local syndicats especially,
and even the Bourses, suffer from the lack of permanent
officials well-informed of all thefluctations of theirtrades.

“ Where ”, asks M. Lagardelle, “ would the great
English Trade Unions be without their specialised
governments and body of officials ? Or the English
Co-operative Societies without their administrators or
directors ? Are not even our French syndicats, behind¬
hand as they are, effective in proportion as their
committees and secretaries have defined and lasting
functions ? ” It is interesting to get such a plea for
more leadership from a French Syndicalist, when

no

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

precisely what has attracted many people in Syndi¬
calism is the absence of leadership. Even if leaders
sometimes ‘ lead from behind the experience of all
countries proves that they are absolutely necessary
to a healthy movement. M. Lagardelle, however,
wants the leaders kept in effective check, and of their
not being so he feels little risk where, as in France,
the unit of action is nearly always purely local. “ The
syndicats ”, he says, “ can control their secretaries ”.
It is indeed a very different matter to control a local
secretary, who is the same as a branch official in
England, and to keep watch over a central body of
officials, with power over strikes in any and every
locality. Such officials the C.G.T. does not want.
It wishes to preserve “ assured contact ” between the
official and. the rank and file, and this, it holds, can be
secured only by the local unit.

A great deal of the misunderstanding of Syndicalism
in England is due to the fact that it has an outlandish
name, which of itself suggests to most people nothing
of its meaning. In France, this is of course not the
case ; Syndicalism has there too its derivative sense,
but it retains as well the ordinary meaning, * Trade
Unionism ’. Syndicat ouvrier is the French for a Trade
Union, and Le Syndicalisms literally means neither
more nor less than Trade Unionism. Thus the differ¬
ence between Revolutionaries and Reformists is not
a difference between Le Syndicalisms and something
else, but between Le Syndicalisms Revolutionnaire
and Le Syndicalisms Reformists. The dominance of
the former in the C.G.T. caused their doctrine to
become known in France as Le Syndicalisms simply,
and born that popular usage the name passed into
general use in England at the time of the French
Railway Strike.

FRENCH LABOUR MOVEMENT

hi

Syndicalism, then, is not an outlandish, newly-manu¬
factured scheme for the organisation of the Labour
movement, but the actual form which circumstances
and environment, as well as the character of the
members, have caused the movement actually to
assume in France. This is important not only for our
understanding of Syndicalism as a whole, but also for
a real appreciation of its position in France. The
theory has developed out of the facts, and not the facts
out of the theory. The rise of Syndicalism has there¬
fore meant in France no such preoccupation with
methods of industrial organisation as we find associated
with it in England. Here, the name Syndicalism is
being used to cover a campaign for the reorganisation
of Trade Unions on industrial, instead of craft, lines ;
in France, the organisation is indeed mainly of that
character, but the question of industrial as against
craft organisations has never bulked very largely in
the movement. It is, however, so much the question
of the moment in this country that we must be quite
clear about the position in France.

Before 1906, the C.G.T. had not pronounced officially
in favour of either ‘ industrial ’ or ‘ craft ’ organisation.
At the Congress of Amiens, in that year, a resolution
was passed that no new ‘ craft ’ federations should be
admitted into the C.G.T. ; but those which already
existed were not to be interfered with. The Congress
of Marseilles in 1908 confirmed this resolution as it
stood. The decision of these congresses was in fact no
more than the ratification of a tendency ; as the
syndicats grew stronger, they were tending to fusion,
and the C.G.T. naturally welcomed the change. It is
much easier to combine many local syndicats of different
* crafts ’, already united by the Bourses, into one
Federation d’Industrie than to combine two existing

112

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

Federations de Metier, when once the ‘ craft ’ principle
has been given national sanction. Even here, how¬
ever, M. Jouhaux tells us, progress has been rapid.
Not only have local ‘ craft ’ unions ( syndicats de
metier) disappeared to give place to local industrial
unions, but also existing national ‘ craft ’ federations
“ tend more and more to be converted into industrial
federations ”.x It is true that the transformation is
as yet by no means complete, especially in the case of
weakly organised industries ; but M. Yvetot, another
C.G.T. leader, has explained the policy of the Con-
fed6ration on this question.

“ It will easily be understood that the Industrial
Federation is gaining ground on the Craft Federation,
and will inevitably end by destroying it. ... In a
word, as exploitation in an industry is extended and
simplified, ‘ craft ’ categories disappear. . . . But this
transformation must be the work of necessity, and
must be brought about by its own expediency, without
hustle, by mutual understanding between the organisa¬
tions concerned ”.2

In adopting this attitude, the C.G.T. has only been
adhering to the principle of the autonomy of the
individual organisation at every stage. No doubt,
interest also prompts it to take up this attitude. It
would be as impossible for it to force reluctant federa¬
tions already within it to adopt any particular form
of organisation as it would be for the Trade Union
Congress to compel all English Unions to adopt an
industrial basis. 1 he only reasonable attitude on the
part of a central authority is to give a clear lead and
leave the actual organisations to follow it up or not,
as they please.

1 Jouhaux, Le Syndicalisme Franpais, pp. io, 12.

2 Georges Yvetot, ABC Syndicaliste.

FRENCH LABOUR MOVEMENT

ii3

The industrial basis, then, is accepted in France as
normal and advantageous. M. Griffuelhes is one of
the writers who give their reasons for this attitude.
“ Industrial federation is the object of the coming
together of diverse corporations [i.e. ‘ craft ’ syn-
dicats ]. In a good many cases the opposite course is
taken. The material on which the work is done [and
not the workshop in which it is done] is made the basis
of organisation. Such a basis makes a policy of offensive
action absolutely impossible A1 M. Lagardelle gives
a second reason. “ Syndicalism accuses craft Unionism
(i corparatisme ) of making ‘ craft ’ selfishness more
extreme ”, and of creating “ a working-class aristoc-
racy .2

The first reason is one of policy. As industry
advances and more processes are concentrated in the
hands of a single employer, as the parts of a single
industry grow more interdependent and industrial
conflicts extend over a larger area, it becomes necessary
for the workers to organise on a corresponding scale
in order to meet the masters in an equality, and, if not
to strike all together, at least to give one another
support in all strikes within the industry. This is the
argument in favour of Industrial Unionism which we
shall find to be the commonest in the United States,
where industrial concentration has reached the highest
point. In its application to France, it is important
to clear up a possible misconception. The object of
industrial federation is not the calling of a national
strike of the whole industry, but the calling of local
strikes. which shall be effective in a whole factory or
district. The problem of industrial organisation has
appealed to France as a local problem, and it is im-

1 V. Griffuelhes, Voyage Revolutionnaire.

2 H. Lagardelle, Le Socialisms Otwrier.

8

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

114

portant to realise that Industrial Unionism may make
just as much difference to local as to national strikes.
It is the disappearance of local syndicats de metier that
M. Jouhaux regards as a sign of the greatest progress.
For French strikes are as a rule small, and the local
unit is the main thing.

The second argument in favour of the industrial
basis is more general. If the C.G.T. is to be regarded
as more than a means of amelioration for the workers
— and the above argument need mean no more than
that — it must preserve a class-structure. “ Class ”,
M. Lagardelle is always saying, “ is a natural division ”
- — it proceeds from the actual condition of Society.
If, then, the workers are to strive together for emanci¬
pation, skilled and unskilled together, they must be
gathered into the same organisations for fear the
strong may use their strength at the expense of the
weak. The conception of working-class solidarity,
which is the basis of the C.G.T., can only be repre¬
sented by industrial organisation, taking no account
of whether a man is skilled or unskilled, but only
of his being a worker, and exploited.

Even where the industrial basis is accepted, there
may still be considerable differences of organisation.
Thus the general principle on which the C.G.T. goes
is, we have seen, that at every stage “ the autonomy
of the organism is complete ”d “ Within the Federa¬
tions and the Bourses du Travail ”, says M. Jouhaux,
“ the syndicats enjoy complete autonomy. We hold
that the syndicat should be left free within the
Federation, in order that, when the moment for a
conflict comes, it may be able, without asking any¬
body’s permission, to act freely, profiting by the
favourable circumstances and conditions that may
1 E. Pouget, La C.G.T.

FRENCH LABOUR MOVEMENT

ii5

arise ”.1 This principle, however, is in practice very
elastic. Federations have always a financial basis,
but this is not generally intended for the support of
strikes ; as a rule, they are directly concerned only
in national movements, which, in most industries,
are rare. But in certain cases, notably in that of
the Federation du Livre, which has about 11,000
members divided into 180 syndicats, the constitution
is highly centralised, and resembles rather one of
our own great national Unions. In a few cases,
the Federation even gives place to the Syndicat
National, which is adapted to fight a centralised
master-class, in the person either of the State or of
the trust. Of this kind may be mentioned the
Syndicat National des Chemins de Fer (Railwaymen’s
Union), which has about 270 sections and about
46,000 members. To the same class belongs also
the famous P.T.T. ( Postes , Telephones et Telegraphed),
which conducted the postal strikes of 1908. The
Federation du Bdtiment, which is strongly revolu¬
tionary, belongs to the same class as the Livre in
being highly centralised and having high dues, but
naturally preserves local initiative in strikes. The
recent decrease in the actual number of Federations
(sixty-three in 1908, fifty-seven in 1910) is due to
amalgamation.2 Federations vary in membership
from 40,000 (Building Trades) down to 100 (Laundry).

There is, then, far less uniformity of organisation
within the C.G.T. than most accounts would imply.
But, on the whole, local autonomy is fairly strictly
preserved, and the right to strike generally remains
absolutely with the locality.

This decentralised system naturally gives far more
importance to the Bourses du Travail than the Trades
1 L. Jouhaux, op. cit. p. u. 2 Ibid. p. 10.

Ii6 THE WORLD OF LABOUR

Councils of this country possess. In the first
place, a Bourse is something quite different from
an English or a German Trades Council. It is
not a representative body, though every syndicat
elects one member to its committee ; it is also a
meeting-place and a centre of industrial life. It is a
Chamber of Labour ; it serves as a Labour Exchange,
as a club-room, as a library, and as a lecture-hall ;
it is, above all, not a committee, but a place. In
the mind of Peiloutier, to whom their development
is largely due, the Bourses , and not the Federations,
were the centres of working-class life in France.
They at least partly succeeded when Federation
was failing, and in them a method of organisation
suiting French conditions seemed to have been
discovered.

It must be remembered that the Bourses were
founded and kept alive by means of municipal sub¬
sidies. These subsidies, which were given them in
their capacity of Labour Exchanges, carried along
with them no sort of municipal control. It was
therefore natural that, when the C.G.T. began to
develop its revolutionary policy, the municipal sub¬
sidies were in many cases withdrawn, and in some
the Bourses were expelled from the municipal buildings
which had been allotted to them. It had, until the
legislation of Waldeck-Rousseau, been illegal for
syndicats or federations of syndicats to possess ‘ im¬
moveable ’ property, and they had perforce been
content with the use of municipal buildings. When,
therefore, the municipal councils showed them the
door, they had no funds to buy and support buildings
of their own. As a rule, a double system grew up.
The Bourse du Travail continued to be a labour
exchange and a meeting-place, but there grew up

FRENCH LABOUR MOVEMENT

1 17

besides what are called Unions de Syndicats (local or
regional), which are more or less Trades Councils,
entirely independent of the municipalities. Through
these Unions there are now being built, in a few
centres, Maisons des Ouvriers — real Trade Union
buildings capable far more efficiently of taking the
place of the old Bourses V

At the actual time of crisis, when the subsidies
were being lost, the Bourses greatly declined. At
Bordeaux and at Limoges, for instance, M. Griffuelhes
says that the Bourses were almost extinguished by
the withdrawal of subsidies. They had, in fact, been
living on a false strength, and when the prop was
removed, the structure gave way. M. Louis Barthou,
writing in 1904, spoke of their weakness and recom¬
mended that attempts at revival should be made.1 2
At the same time, the Federations were rapidly
growing in power, and in consequence the balance
shifted. Then, as the Bourses, supplemented by the
Unions de Syndicats, began to weather the storm,
they regained their influence ; but so far they have
still been suffering under the artificial depression
caused by their quarrel with the municipalities.
Their growth, however, in spite of amalgamations,
has been rapid. From 1900 to 1902 the number
grew from 5 7 to 96, 3 and at the present day it stands
at about 160, including about 2600 syndicats. The
growing numbers of local Bourses have led to the
foundation of Unions Departmentales and Unions
Regionales to deal with questions covering a wider

1 In the previous chapter, we for convenience spoke only of
Bourses, and used the word to include Unions. Where there
is a Union, there is generally also a Bourse.

2 Barthou, L’ Action Syndicate.

3 Eighty-three in the F.B.T,

n8

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

area. These unions are made up of representatives
from local Unions.

The function of the Bourses is, as we have seen,
to correct the professional point of view, just as the
Federations prevent ‘ parochialism Where In¬
dustrial Unionism is the rule, they have therefore
more to do with general propaganda than with the
actual ordering of strikes. In the first place, they
are widely used as methods of preaching the virtues
of combination to the unorganised. For instance,
they made possible the organisation of the vine-
workers of the Midi and the Bucherons du Centre.
They also organise the general congresses of the
C.G.T. They are, moreover, schools of ‘ intercorporate
solidarity ’. " The present function of the Bourses

du Travail is to secure the disappearance of pro¬
fessional selfishness and thus to make the organisa¬
tion of the workers more powerful "A In strikes,
as we have seen, they are the rendezvous for the
strikers, and organise soupes communistes. In general
strikes in a locality, their function is more extensive :
they then become the unit, and the charge of the
conflict is committed to them. It would be impossible
to exaggerate the importance which these duties
give them ; they are still, in spite of temporary set¬
backs, the pivot on which the whole movement turns.
Failure to understand the peculiar position of the
Bourses is what has made many English accounts
of Syndicalism in France misleading and mistaken.2

We have spoken of the Federations andof the Bourses
du 1 ravail separately : it remains to say something of

1 Jouhaux, op. cit. pp. 17-18.

" ^ee> f°r instance, M. Jouhaux’s review, in the Bataille
Syndicalists, of Mr. and Mrs. Webb’s pamphlet, What
Syndicalism Is.

FRENCH LABOUR MOVEMENT

119

the C.G.T. itself, of which they form the two sections.
We have seen that the function of the C.G.T. is not,
as a rule, to order or institute strikes. It is not, in
its own phrase, “ an organism of direction”. Just as
the syndicats are supposed to be autonomous within
the Federations and the Bourses, these in turn are
supposed to enjoy freedom from interference by the
C.G.T. “ The co-ordination is natural, and begins at
the bottom ”.1 Just as the Federations are designed
.“ to co-ordinate, but not to neutralise,” the activities
of the syndicats, the C.G.T. is to interfere only where
interference and co-ordination are urgently needed,
and is not to take upon itself the normal direction of
the movement. “ The Confederal Committee gives
no orders. Even when immediate measures are called
for, it frames, not a command, but an account of the
position, and asks the syndicats for help. If a Bourse or
syndic at likes, it has a right to postpone action ”. . . .
“ It is false to say that it is the Confederal Committee
which arranges strikes ; these are in fact the effect of
the will of those directly concerned. Its function
should be limited to seconding them, either by organisa¬
tion, national appeals to solidarity, or by delegating
on the fields of action, stalwarts [ militants ] who will
not be directors of the strike, but will help by speak¬
ing and advising the workers the dispute affects. It
is equally wrong to say that it is the C.G.T. which
makes strikes violent. Their character is decided by
the particular circumstances. It is violent or pacific
according to the resistance and the obstacles it has to
meet ”.2

It has been generally remarked that the C.G.T.,
being centred in Paris, practically consists of a few
leaders on the spot. These men have been able to
1 E. Pouget. 2 Jouhaux, op. cit. p. 19.

120

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

convey, abroad and even in France, the impression
that the movement is far more directed by con¬
structive revolutionary ideas than is actually the
case. The French movement is certainly far more
‘ class-conscious ’ than our own ; but it is certainly
nothing like so much dominated by theories as its
literature would make us believe. In this respect,
there has been during the last few years a good deal
of change. Less has been heard, since the episode of
M. Niel’s resignation in 1909, of the Anarchism of
M. Pouget, and more of the actual reformist work that
is being done. The influence of M. Jouhaux, the
revolutionary who succeeded M. Niel as secretary,
seems to have been cast in this direction, and perhaps
certain checks sustained by the more violent policy
also tended in that direction. This does not mean
in the least that the C.G.T. has abandoned its revolu¬
tionary ideas, but only that they are slowly assuming
their proper size in proportion to actual ameliorative
efforts. Far more is heard now of campaigns in favour
of the ‘ English week ’ and the eight hours’ day, and,
apart from the strike against war, the general strike
is less talked about. It is still mentioned, but not
with the old ring of sincerity and enthusiasm.

This change in policy may seem to have made the
function of the C.G.T. much less positive than before.
But if it has diminished the noise it makes, it has
increased its usefulness. The C.G.T., unless the
recrudescence of militarism causes it to be smashed
by the Government, will probably settle down into a
good administrative and propagandist body. We in
England often suffer from the lack of such a co-ordin¬
ating force in the Labour Movement. Our General
Federation of Trade Pinions is too young to have the
strength, while the Parliamentary Committee of the

FRENCH LABOUR MOVEMENT

121

Trade Union Congress, which approaches most nearly
what is required, is limited in function and in other
ways unsatisfactory. The Labour movement cer¬
tainly gains by having a single central organisation to
represent it, even if it very strictly limits the powers
of such a body. The C.G.T. has wholly justified its
existence. It alone holds the movement together
and secures the harmonious working of the two
sections, local and professional. Its existence is, more¬
over, very important from the point of view of propa¬
ganda : it attracts attention, and it sends organisers.
It was impossible to create any really strong movement
before the C.G.T. existed, and were it removed, much
that has been built up would soon fall asunder. That
Labour in France is as strong as it is must be reckoned
mainly to the credit of the C.G.T.

No judgment on the French movement could be
complete without taking account of the question of
‘ benefits When all is said and done, is the com¬
parative lack of benefits 1 in the C.G.T. a source of
strength or of weakness ? We saw, in the last chapter,
the opposite views of M. Guesde and M. Pouget on this
question. M. Pouget, the representative of the
extreme revolutionaries, welcomes the ‘ purely fight¬
ing character ’ of the syndicats, although he believes
that it has prevented the membership from increasing
as rapidly as it has elsewhere. On the other hand, it
is maintained that the whole success of a strike depends
on everybody striking, and that this end cannot be
secured without organising everybody. It is beyond
doubt that the English and German Unions owe a great
deal of their membership to the desire for benefits,
and equally so that the raising of contributions and

1 It should be noted that this lack extends to ‘ dispute ’ a^
well as ‘ friendly ’ benefits,

122

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

benefits in Belgium actually caused a big increase in
the number of unionists. If, then, the syndicate could,
by increasing their benefits, send up their membership,
are they right not to do so ?

This is how the question is often put ; but in this
form it is misleading. If, in any syndicat, a majority
of workers desires high benefits, there is absolutely
nothing to prevent them from having them. The
C.G.T. exercises no compulsion in such questions,
which depend solely on the will of the members. The
low average of benefits may therefore be taken as a
sign that the workers as a whole do not want them
any higher. The tendency is no doubt towards the
raising of the contributions ; but this tendency is slow,
and any rapid increase, however desirable from some
points of view, is out of the question. In fact, the
‘ friendly ’ movement reached maturity in France
before Trade Unionism, and the tendency to keep the
two separate is still marked. “ We are not opposed
to mutuality ”, says M. Pouget ; “ but we keep it out
of the syndicate ”.

In fact, the whole tendency in France is towards
the separation of each part of the Labour movement.
Politics and industrial action after long disputes have
become wholly separate, and are beginning, under
these conditions, to lose their antagonism. Socialistic
Co-operation has been tried; but the recent coalition
of the Socialist Co-operative Societies with the Union
Co-operative seems to mark the victory of neutrality
here too. Syndicalist Co-operative Societies have
never taken root. Similarly, it seems to suit the
French to keep ‘ mutual insurance ’ apart from the
class-struggle ’. This extreme case of separation will
no doubt in time be modified ; but it is easier to under¬
stand its persistence when we look at it alongside the

FRENCH LABOUR MOVEMENT

123

other branches of the movement. A catastrophic
change in such a matter is not practical Syndicalism ;
but the constitution of the C.G.T. leaves the way
always open for a gradual modification of programme.1

We should not, therefore, be too ready to censure
the C.G.T. for not doing what would not suit it, and
what it could not do if it tried. It is indeed likely
that the C.G.T. has united as many workers as could
be got together anywhere except in Germany on a
purely ‘ fighting ’ basis, and that it will find rapid
progress difficult : but this by no means shows that
more attention to ‘ benefits ’ would make a difference ;
it merely shows that movements in other countries
are not so strong as they look. The ‘ benefit ’ question
is not one to be settled at will by the leaders ; it
settles itself according to the situation of the move¬
ment.

In this examination of the practical working and
the prospects of the C.G.T., there has been throughout
an undercurrent of criticism on the manner in which
the movement is generally regarded, both here and
in France. It has been judged far too much by its
theorists, and far too little by itself. In a theory
which does not make, but arises out of, action, it is
inevitable that much should be rationalised and
tabulated that ought to be left to the decisions of
the moment. It is further natural that, in passing
judgment, men should be influenced more by the
literature, which is accessible, than by the facts,
which are often unchronicled. In discussions of
Syndicalism, far too much has been heard of M.
Sorel and the ‘ Social Myth ’, and far too little of the
C.G.T. Syndicalism has appeared too much as a

1 Of course, in not a few cases high benefits are already paid,
as in the Federation du Livre and the F Miration du Bdtiment,

124

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

theory of society, where it is weak, and too little as
a gospel of industrial action, where it is strong.
Critics have busied themselves with the absurdities
of the doctrine of the ‘ Mines for the Miners ’ and the
‘ patients for the doctors and have forgotten that
Syndicalism is far more concerned with progressive
demands for better workshop conditions. The doc¬
trine of ‘ la Mine aux Mineurs ’ does indeed appear
in Syndicalist writings, especially in Pelloutier’s
Histoire des Bourses du Travail and in MM. Pataud
and Pouget’s Syndicalist romance, Comment nous
ferons la Revolution ; but in the actual life of the
C.G.T., and at its Congresses, it takes a very small
place. It is mainly an Anarchist importation, a
revival in another form of the old advocacy of the
‘ self-governing workshop ’. Its validity we shall
have to examine later ; here we are only concerned
to state its importance in the action of the C.G.T.
A much more reasonable point of view is to be found
in M. Gabriel Beaubois’ book, La Crise Postale et
les Monopoles d' E tat, published at the time of the
postal strikes, where the demand is not for absolute
control, but for a more effective share in the manage¬
ment. It is in the minds of theorists and Anarchists
that ‘ la Mine aux Mineurs ’ becomes an important
doctrine.

It is, however, true that, in the domain of theory,
the transference to this form of Anarchist Com¬
munism is easy. Syndicalism, in contrast to Col¬
lectivism, does lay all the stress on the producer
and none on the consumer. It does refuse to recognise
the function of the great league of consumers we
call the State. But this refusal, where it is not an
unjustifiable theoretical development, is an unreflec-
tive antipathy to the bourgeois State of the present.

FRENCH LABOUR MOVEMENT

125

Syndicalism is an organisation of producers, and,
until it reflects, naturally considers the producer
rather than the consumer. Were it face to face
with a State and municipalities equally democratic,
it would not be led to draw the same conclusions,
or to insist on “ sweeping from the workshop, the
factory, and the administration every authority
external to the world of Labour”.1 The opposition
to the State is fundamental as long as the State
remains irretrievably bourgeois ; but the opposition
to all authority is not a necessary consequence of
Syndicalism. In fact, as M. Lagardelle on one side
and the Reformists on the other maintain, Syndicalism
has nothing to do with Anarchism.

What then, when we have made away with these
pretenders, is left as the real basis on which Syndi¬
calism rests. M. Lagardelle has put it very neatly
in a phrase which we have used already. ‘ Socialism
of Institutions’, the name whichhe gives to Syndicalism,
expresses its fundamental character. Its essence is
the ‘ class-struggle ’, the war of the exploited against
the exploiters, the denial that ‘ social peace ’ is possible
under Capitalism. Along with this characteristic
conception goes a method. Marx’s phrase, “ the
emancipation of Labour must be. the work of Labour
itself ”, is the watchword of the movement, which
aims at creating its own organs of revolution. Bour¬
geois society can only be supplanted as the workers
develop 1 social tissue ’ of their own, as they create
new organisms capable of expressing their point of
view. “ Within its syndicats and Co-operative
Societies, the working-class hands down its ways of
thinking, and elaborates new rules of life, morality,
and right The ‘ class ’, if it is not to be a mob,
1 H. Lagardelle, Le Socialisme Ouvrier.

126 THE WORLD OF LABOUR

must find for its ideas ordered and permanent expres¬
sion. The syndicat must be recognised as the repre¬
sentative of Labour, as the voice of the whole working-
class, which is inarticulate without it. It is the new
social individual, a force to be reckoned with in every
sphere of the State’s activity.

Such a definition of the syndicat would be accepted
not only by M. Lagardelle and the Syndicalists, but
also by many Radicals, whose first desire is to secure
the orderly settlement of industrial disputes. We
should therefore hesitate to draw from it the con¬
clusions which are often drawn. It does not follow,
because the syndicats are the new individuals created
by the workers, that they are the only individuals
possible in a modern State. The industrial conflict
has indeed so overshadowed all other questions that
those especially who are themselves the victims of
industrial tyranny can hardly be expected to perceive
that the wood contains any other trees. But, however
important a part the workers may be, they are not,
even numerically, the whole State, and a theory that
takes account only of them must inevitably have
limitations. Syndicalism, in fact, like most practical
doctrines, is strong where it affirms and weak where
it denies. In affirming the value of industrial action
and of the workers’ natural organisations, it lays
down the true principle of a philosophy of Labour ;
but in taking this doctrine to imply the denial of
the State, it goes too far, and is led into extravagance
and perversity. That way lie ‘ the impossibilities
of Anarchism ’.

On the whole, then, what have we learnt from the
French movement ? If we have learnt to be guarded
in applying its theories or its practice outside France,
we shall have done much. If we have learnt to

FRENCH LABOUR MOVEMENT

127

regard it, in anything that goes beyond the funda¬
mental principle we have just been discussing, as a
national movement to be studied as such, rather
than as a gospel to be taken or left whole and un¬
diluted, we shall have done more. The Syndicalism
of which we have been speaking is in fact simply
French Trade Unionism or rather that form of French
Trade Unionism which has dominated the movement.
Put that way, it is less likely to become a theme for
ill-informed execration or undiscriminating idolatry.
We must pick and choose, and, where Trade Unionism
in this country presents particular problems for solution,
we must see if the . actual experience of the French
syndicats can help us. National movements, studied
in that way, may be helpful to other countries ; but as it
happens to be easier to copy M. Sorel’s opinions out of
one book into another, that method is more generally
adopted. That, however, does not tell us what the
C.G.T. is really doing ; or, above all, what we ought
to do.

CHAPTER V

LABOUR IN AMERICA

From France to America seems a step into a new
world — into an economic system so different from any
we know in Europe that all discussion of it may at
first sight appear utterly irrelevant here. Conditions
seem so dissimilar that the learning of any lessons from
them looks like an impossibility. Y et we are compelled
to deal with the American Labour movement because
it has, in fact, exercised a considerable influence in
Great Britain. It was in America that the question
of Industrial Unionism first came to the front, and it
was from America that the earlier advocates of it in this
country borrowed their ideas and arguments. We
must not therefore shirk the trouble of a thorough
examination.

M. Jouhaux 1 has himself recognised the wide
difference between the French and the American
situations. “ Where we French Trade Unionists ”,
he writes, “ are stronger than the English is in having
the Syndicalist idea of the association of members of
different Trade Unions, so that they may understand
and sympathise with one another “ But ”, said the
interviewer, “ that was the origin of the Industrial
Workers of the World in the United States ”. “ Pre¬

cisely ”, M. Jouhaux replied, “ but the I.W.W. preach

1 In an interview published in the Daily Citizen.

128

LABOUR IN AMERICA

129

a policy of militant action, very necessary in parts of
America, which would not do in France The C.G.T.
has often been denounced for violence ; but, on the
authority of its secretary, we may expect to find it mild
in comparison with the workers of America.

In what, then, does this difference actually consist ?
In the first place, the difference is one of industrial
structure. We have seen reason to believe that many
of the peculiar characteristics of the C.G.T. are due to,
and are passing away with, la petite Industrie — the
survival of the small master and the backwardness
of industrial development. But if France stands at
one end of the scale, America clearly stands at the other.
Nowhere is capital so concentrated, industrial method
so advanced, industry itself so ' trustified If in
France the difficulty was to organise in face of the small
master, in America it is to do so in face of the great
impersonal force of the trusts. ‘ Trustified ’ industry
appears to the American worker as the inevitable
development of the national life. He has no confidence
in the professions of politicians about ‘ trust-smashing
“ It is just as foolish to try to smash the trusts as it
would be to smash corporations and partnerships.
The bigger the machines and the larger the market,
the greater must be the organisation of industry ”T
Face to face with organisations like the Steel Trust,
which, working fully, employs 200,000 persons and has
a capital of $1,400,000,000, the workers must organise
on a similar scale, and must adopt every method that
comes handy. The organisation of the capitalists is “ a
centralised Empire ”, and the workers can only make
headway by building up such another Empire of their
own.

Secondly, in industry as in public life, America is

1 W. D. Haywood and Frank Bohn, Industrial Socialism.

9

130

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

still fiercely individualistic. With all its centralised
capital and organ sation on a huge scale, no spirit of
solidarity has sprung up. Within the trusts, and
within the Labour Unions, there reign still rampant
egoism and fierce competition. Among English-
speaking workers, the path of personal advancement
is still so far open that this spirit has hardly begun to
break down. There is indeed, as such paths are closed,
and as a Social Reform movement arises, a tendency
to mitigate its intensity ; but it will be long before it
ceases to be a barrier both to organisation of any sort
and to effective co-operation between those who are
a ready organised. At the same time, it sometimes
stands in the way of a complete development of
organisation on the side of the employers.

Thirdly — and for our present purpose this is the most
important differentiation — immigration makes the
industrial problem in America wholly different from
any that has to be faced in Western Europe. The tide
of immigration never ceases to flow to the United States
more and more rapidly. Formerly, the immigrants
were mostly of races not very unlike those actually
settled in America, and possessed, at least approxi¬
mately, the same standards of life; in spite therefore of
their numbers, there was no great difficulty in absorb¬
ing them in the huge and half-populated continent on
which they sought their fortune. But in the last few
years a great change has come over American immigra¬
tion : there is pouring into the industrial districts
a mass of East European immigrants, who bring with
them their own outlook and standards of life. They
come to find fortune ; they live as sojourners in a
strange land ; and, when they have worked their time
in the factories, many of them go back to Europe.
The change that this new stream of emigration and

LABOUR IN AMERICA

131

return is bringing upon Eastern Europe and Italy
cannot possibly be overestimated ; but the change in
America is no less tremendous. These Poles, Slavs,
Southern Italians and even Syrians, who are pouring
into the States at the rate of nearly a million a year
and will soon be coming very much faster, cannot,
like the old class of immigrants, easily be assimilated.
They do not, when they have been a few years in the
States, become ‘ Americans ’ either by naturalisation
or by culture: they' keep their own languages, ways
of living and standards of comfort. For the capitalist,
they are merely cheap labour, a commodity to be used
for its full commercial value. They are unskilled, and
they become machine-minders, intent only on making
a bare living and enough over and above to send
something back to their homes in Europe, and to lay
up a nest-egg for themselves. They are a class apart,
housed in mushroom cities of shanties which the civilised
American never sees, carrying on, in the midst of the
most prodigious industrial development that has ever
been, the simple ways of life of the most backward
parts of Europe. If we compare the description of
this class as it lives at home — say in Mr. Booker
Washington’s The Man Farthest Down in Europe —
with a parallel description of their coming to America—
say in Mr. A. E. Zimmern’s admirable American Im¬
pressions in the Sociological Review of July 1912 —
we shall realise how little they are changed by the
change of environment. Not merely are they not
being assimilated ; they cannot be and do not want
to be, assimilated. As they are mere commodities
in the eyes of the American capitalist, so all America
is in their eyes merely a hell that is not eternal, a very
unpleasant place where money is to be made. When
they have done their part, home they go, and a new

132

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

and larger batch of their countrymen takes their
place.

America, in fact, is drawing on the world-market
of unskilled labour. That these immigrants have a
standard of life wholly different from that of the
American or West European worker is not a mere
accident ; it is the whole reason for their being in
the States at all. American industry has, during the
last decade, been undergoing a great transformation.
The advance from hand to machine labour has been
there very largely a movement to substitute unskilled
for skilled labour. In industry, as a recent editorial
in the New Age 1 pointed out, it is possible to pursue
either of two ideals in production — quantity or quality.
It is possible to devote attention to turning out work
of a really high order, to specialise in skill, as England
has done, for instance, in the case of shipbuilding.
This method demands high wages, short hours and
the development of skill and intelligence among the
workers. Or a nation may set before itself the purely
quantitative ideal and aim at turning out the greatest
possible amount of goods irrespective of quality ; and
in this case it will develop its machinery to the highest
point of mechanical perfection — and underpay its
labour. It will secure machines so simple that a
child can work them ; and, when the supply of children
gives out, or the law steps in, as it has begun to do in
the States, some means will be found of getting labour
inefficient and nasty, but at the same time cheap.
All the circumstances combined to drive America
along the road of quantitative production. Com¬
petition was severe, individualism strong, and the
new labour power, once discovered, inexhaustible.

1 April 1 6, 1913. The whole article is admirable, and to
the point.

LABOUR IN AMERICA

133

So we have now the spectacle of Europe providing
America with its unskilled labour and making the
United States a competitor soon to be reckoned
with by England, and Europe generally, in the world-
market.

It is more to the point for us to notice that these
new methods of production have divided the working-
classes of America sharply into two sections. The
old skilled labour often felt its separateness from the
old unskilled ; sectionalism was rife long before the
new wave of immigration began. But the old labouring
class as a whole has nothing whatever in common with
the new unskilled. The immigrants are to them merely
competitors, cheapeners of wages, rivals for employ¬
ment, natural enemies. They cannot unite in the
same movement ; they cannot even stand shoulder to
shoulder in a conflict with the employer who exploits
both alike. The old working-class can only stand
aghast and impotent in face of these new rivals, whose
ways of life are not its ways, and whose gods are not
its gods.

Indeed, the whole body of immigrant labour cannot
help being, in the eyes of the old American workmen,
a ‘ blackleg ’ class. Their acceptance of a lower
standard of life has depressed wages in every grade of
industry ; and their abundance, going along with the
improvement in machinery, has decreased the de¬
mand for skilled labour. The machine and the un¬
skilled between them are driving the members of the
old ‘ skilled ’ unions from their cherished monopoly,
and are making them fear even for their livelihood ;
and every step that America takes in the direction
of quantitative production is a nail more in the
coffin of the old labour aristocracy. Along with
these causes goes another, which it is best to give

134

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

in the actual words of those who have seen it at
work :

“ The unemployed army and the new machines are
constantly forcing wages in many industries down to
a point below what is absolutely necessary to support
a wife alone, not to mention children. Also, until
about twenty years ago, there was another factor in
American life that tended to keep wages up. There
was plenty of free land in the West. The strongest,
boldest workers, especially those who had a little
money in the bank, could always go West and take up
free land or get a good job. In the West there was
much work to be done and workers were scarce. As
some left the East, the wages of others went up or were
prevented from going down. So there developed
among the working people in America what has been
known as ‘the American standard of living’. But
during the last twenty years American workers have
been constantly getting less and less for their work.
In dollars and cents the average wages have probably
not gone down at all during the past fifteen years. In
many cases, they have actually risen. But measured
by the food, clothing and shelter the worker can buy
with his wages, which is the only true way to measure
an income, wages have gone down at least 50 per
cent, in this time. ... It takes three dollars to buy as
much as two would buy formerly. . . . Nothing but
Socialism can prevent the condition of the American
workers from becoming just as bad as that of the
working people of Europe, or even worse. . . . Finally,
wages go down because it takes less food, clothing
and shelter to keep a worker alive to-day than his
father required, demanded and received fifty years
ago ”}

1 Haywood and Bohn, op. cit.

LABOUR IN AMERICA

135

The lot of Labour in America, then, as the statistics
would by themselves show, is getting worse rather
than better. According to the figures published by
the Bureau of Labour, if the average of the wages paid
from 1890 to 1900 is taken as 100, nominal wages stood,
in 1912, at 129, and real wages, allowing for the rise in
prices, at 98. But these figures, being taken only
from a few industries, very greatly minimise the
decline, which affects old skilled industries more
slowly than the newer ‘ trustified ’ machine industries.
There can be no doubt that, on the whole, the
lot of Labour is getting worse, and that old
methods of organisation can do nothing to arrest
the decline.

There are, then, now in America two working-classes,
with different standards of life, and both are at present
almost impotent in face of the employers. Nor is it
possible for these two classes to unite, or put forward
common demands. Not only are their interests in
many respects conflicting ; but there is an entire
lack of that spiritual unity which alone can form a
basis for permanent common action. The old methods
of organisation do not suit the new personnel, and there
is no possible basis for a new common method. It is
therefore not merely a passing accident that there are
two forms of labour organisation standing in direct
opposition one to the other, and yet in an opposition
that is more apparent than real ; for they are really
trying to do two different and quite reconcilable things.
The American Federation of Labour and the Industrial
Workers of the World represent two different principles
of combination ; but they also represent two different
classes of Labour.

These two forms of combination may be described
roughly as ‘ Craft ’ and ‘ Industrial ’ Unionism. It

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

136

must not, however, be assumed that these words
have here the same sense as we attributed to them
in dealing with the French movement. The opposi¬
tion is here much more defined, and the working
compromise between the two principles, which has
acted quite smoothly in France, would be unthinkable
in America. ‘ Industrial Unionism ’, as we shall see,
really bears, when used by the Industrial Workers
of the World, far more than its surface meaning.

The American Federation of Labour, formed in
1886, which caters for the skilled and ‘ American ’
workers, is by far the older, larger and stronger body
of the two. Embracing nearly two millions of
workers,1 it claims to stand for the Labour movement
in America, and is accepted as doing so in inter¬
national Labour congresses. By the Industrial
Workers of the World, and by nearly all sections of
the American public, it is freely denounced as “ foster¬
ing demarcation disputes and aristocratic spirit ”,
as “inapplicable to modern conditions”, and as
“ preventing concerted action ”.2 The principle 3 of
the American Federation of Labour is a strict ‘ craft ’
unionism. It is rigidly organised from the centre
by Mr. Samuel Gompers and a few other leaders,
who keep a tight hold over all questions of discipline.
In spite, however, of this strong centralisation in
some respects, it is in others very deficient. Its
strict adherence to the * craft ’ principle has raised
sectionalism to the highest pitch, and there is no
security that any one section will support another
in disputes. The unity is strong where it should be

1 The A. F. of L. now has 1 ,770,145 members. There are also
many independent craft unions similar to those it contains.

2 Miss A. E. Hughan, American Socialism at the Present Time.

3 See, however, later on.

LABOUR IN AMERICA

137

weak, and weak where it should be strong. These
“ corrupt and aristocratic craft unions ” can be
charged with even graver faults. Their government
is highly undemocratic, and some of the officials are
suspectedof being secretly in league with the employers.
It is said, for instance, that the Boot and Shoe Workers,
the United Textile Workers, and the International
Association of Machinists are notorious instances of
undemocratic practices, and that some Unions only
hold their membership by terrorism. It is further
complained that the A. F. of L. makes no attempt
to organise the mass of the workers. It consists
of Unions intended to benefit the skilled at the expense
of the unskilled, to force up the price of certain classes
of labour, and not to raise the general standard among
the working population. With this end in view, it
tries to secure monopolies, not merely as against
non-union labour, but against all labour that does
not belong to it, and follow the lead it gives. Even
internecine conflicts between two of the Unions
composing it are not uncommon, and everything is
done to secure for the craft-members a peculiar
position. Apprenticeship is severely limited, and the
Unions aim, as a rule, at creating a barrier against
the entrance of new labour by the imposition of very
high entrance fees. These often range from $50
to $200, and in the case of the National Association
of Green Bottle Blowers, which is not an isolated
instance, they rise to $500. Their central unity is
largely used as a means of preserving their sectional
autonomy, with the result that they are merely pitted
one against another. “ The A. F. of L. furnishes one
craft union with no protection against another. The
plan of Federation with local and international
autonomy furnishes a weapon that is as ineffective

138

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

as independent craft unionism ”.1 In fact, the
charge against the Craft Unions is that they are
obsolete. “ The trusts are rapidly organising into
one great system”,2 and such organisation on the
one side means a corresponding development on the
other. Antagonism, which was not bitter while small
capitalists survived, or were not forced by the opposi¬
tion of the trusts to pay even worse wages than they,
“ increases with the concentration of industry ”.
Take an instance from the steel industry. “ In the
old days of small production the workers were pro¬
tected by the Amalgamated Association of Iron and
Steel Workers. This Union secured the eight hours’
day for many of its members. To-day, many of the
slaves of the Steel Trust toil twelve hours a day on
seven days a week.” 2 The trusts can smash the
old Unions. “ These Unions were composed of
skilled workers. The progress of machine industry,
making their skill unnecessary, destroyed their
effectiveness, as it did that of the small corporation.” 2
It is easy for employers now to evade the power of
craft Unionism by importing workers, whom it makes
no attempt to organise. “ It [the A. F. of L.] does
not exist for the purpose of organising the working-
class. It is a loose association of craft Unions, each
of which merely desires to keep up the standard of
wages and hours in its own trade. It has no message
for the working-class. It does not seek to make an

1 From On the Firing Line (1912), published by the Industrial
Worker, Spokane, Washington. ‘ International ’ in this
passage needs explaining. Federations often include workers
from Canada and other parts outside the U.S.A. In such
cases they may be called either ‘ National ’ or ‘ International ’
Federations indifferently. In practice, ‘ international ’ means
1 national.’

i Haywood and Bohn, op. cit.

LABOUR IN AMERICA

139

end of unemployment, of child labour, and of all
the other frightful conditions of labour ”.1

This is the portrait of the American Federation of
Labour, as it is painted by its enemies. We shall
have, later in this chapter, to modify the indictment ;
but it is best here to state it in its broadly correct
outline. “ Craft Unions will exist as long as they
are successful ” 1 even for the restricted class for
which they cater ; but we have said enough to show
at least that the Federation has indeed ‘ no message ’
for the millions of unskilled labourers who form the
real industrial proletariat of the United States.
Messrs. Haywood and Bohn estimate that there are
in the States thirty million persons working for
others, that is, subject to the wage system. The
actual manual wage-earners include no less than
seven million women and four million children. Of
all this vast industrial population, the craft Unions
of all sorts have not gathered in more than three
millions, and there has been practically no attempt
to organise the unskilled. The membership of the
Federation only increased by eight thousand last
year, in a period of considerable unrest following
upon the Lawrence strike. In face of such a situa¬
tion, new forms of action are clearly necessary.

This brings us to the Industrial Workers of the
World. The failure of craft Unionism to meet the
position demanded that a trial should be given to
the rival principle of ‘ class ’ Unionism. The great
unskilled must somehow be put in a position to take
common action, and all attempts to do this demanded
the complete abandonment of craft autonomy. In
the new ‘ machine ’ industry, crafts do not exist, or
at least do not touch the greater part of the workers.

1 Haywood and Bohn, op. cit.

140

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

A long time ago, the ‘ class ’ principle in organisation
was given its first trial. The Knights of Labour,
organised in 1869, were, in fact, the ‘ One Big Union ’
of the Industrial Workers’ dream. But after a
period of great strength between 1880 and 1890, the
Knights gradually lost their hold, and in 1895 were
already practically extinct. They conformed, in
their organisation, to the extreme principle of ‘ class ’
Unionism ; no industrial sections or ' craft locals ’
were allowed, and they constituted, in fact, rather a
society of practical social theorists than a Labour
Union. Their chief campaigns were fought in favour
of the eight hour day. But the Knights of Labour
were not an instance of ‘ class ’ Unionism following
upon the failure of strong ‘ craft ’ Unions. They
were, in fact, an embryonic organisation which in¬
cluded highly skilled workers, and therefore they
soon began to disintegrate into special craft Unions.
The ‘ class ’ structure was not suited to the conditions
of American industry at the time of their power.

The second assertion of the ‘ class,’ or rather, this
time, of the ‘ Industrial ’ principle was in the case
of the Western Federation of Miners, who were first
organised in 1892. In this organisation were gathered
together all classes of workers in the metal mines
to the West, including engineers and mill-men as
well as the actual getters of the metal. Their period
of success was about 1903-4 ; and in many cases
they won a minimum of $3 a day, and a general
eight hours’ day.1 But continual militancy finally
brought exhaustion ; in 1905 the W.F.M. suffered

1 These agreements have been, we are told, a dead letter
except where the Unions are strong enough to enforce them.
See Eleven Blind. Leaders, by B. H. Williams published by the
I.W.W

LABOUR IN AMERICA 141

a great defeat, and though in that year they joined
in forming the Industrial Workers of the World,
they withdrew in 1906, and from that time onwards
have become steadily less militant. Even in what
is known to American Syndicalists as “their best
period", it is said that ‘‘ they were dominated by a
militant minority of 10 per cent.’’.1

The Western Federation of Miners showed the
way and were indeed the chief organisation among
those which formed the Industrial Workers of the
World in 1905. From 1901 to 1905 there had been
a great period of industrial unrest. Workers had
‘ flocked into the Unions ’ ; times had been good
for American trade, and there was a scarcity of
workers.2 In 1900 the membership of the American
Federation of Labour was 548,321 : in 1906 it had
risen to over two millions. This labour unrest is
attributable to several causes, of which the most
important was the closing of the West, where free
land had been exhausted in the ’nineties. The con¬
tinual weakening of the Labour movement by the
buying of its leaders for Tammany Hall purposes
seems also at this time to have slackened ; and, with
trade booming, a good deal of progress was made.
The foundation of the Industrial Workers thus came
at the end of a great advance, and was the expression
of a dissatisfaction with the methods of the Federa¬
tion of Labour. The conference, held at Chicago,
where it was definitely constituted, claimed to
represent 90,000 workers ; but only in the case of
40,000 were the delegates authorised by their associa¬
tions, and of these 27,000 were the Western Federation

1 Syndicalism, by E. C. Ford and W. Z. Foster.

2 Why Strikes are Lost, by W. E. Trautmann, published by

the I.W.W.

142

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

of Miners.1 It is not worth while to follow the I.W.W.
through all its subsequent difficulties and conflicts.
Those who first set it up included three sections at
least opponents of all political action, opponents
of all actual parties, and advocates of a combination
of industrial and political action alongside the Socialist
Party. The differences were strong from the first,
and it was not long before the orthodox Socialist
section left. Then the personal followers of Daniel
Deleon, one of the founders, who had had, long before
the I.W.W. came into existence, a Socialist-Labour
Party all of his own, also broke away, and founded
a second I.W.W. with its headquarters at Detroit.
The Deleonites, who are extremists of the most
curious sort, are at the same time strong advocates
of political action and strenuous opponents of every
actual party. Their method of political activity is
the ‘ Don’t Vote ’ campaign. They are known in
England through their attempts to spread Industrial
Unionism here, and through their paper, The Socialist
which is published in Glasgow,* as the official organ
of the Socialist-Labour Party. In America they
have remained insignificant ; their leaders are mostly
not of the working-class, and their attempts at
organisation in the towns of New Jersey have not
met with much response. They got a good deal of
credit for the first strike of weavers at Paterson,
but this movement was a direct result of the more
important strike at Lawrence, and it is unlikely that
the workers of Paterson knew that the Detroit I.W.W.

See throughout, for the history of the I.W.W The In-

bvlhf e th£ T°rld> hy VinCent St' J°lmi published

by the I.W.W. Some facts in the text, however, are from
unpublished sources.

2 Formerly at Edinburgh.

LABOUR IN AMERICA

143

was a different organisation from that which had
conducted the Lawrence movement. Moreover, the
Paterson strike was in its settlement by no means
so satisfactory as the Lawrence strike, and after the
second stoppage was over the organisation soon
began to filter away. The Chicago I.W.W. has now
come on the scene and gathered up what remains
of the work done by its rival. The Paterson strike
of 1913 was actually conducted by the Chicago I.W.W.

The real Industrial Workers of the World are then
the body which has its centre at Chicago, and to
which all the leaders, Messrs. Haywood, Trautmann,
St. John and others, belong. It is therefore the body
which we shall hereafter mean when we use the name
by itself. At its first congress, the I.W.W. adopted
a 1 Preamble ’ or declaration of objects, which allowed
a place to political as well as to industrial action.
As successive elements left, the Preamble was modified,
and political action was dropped. In its present form
it is worth giving in full :

“ The working class and the employing class have
nothing in common. There can be no peace so long
as hunger and want are found among millions of
working people, and the few, who make up the em¬
ploying class, have all the good things of life.

“ Between these two classes a struggle must go on
until all the toilers come together on the industrial
field, and take and hold that which they produce by
their labor, through an economic organisation of the
working class without affiliation to any political party.

“ The rapid gathering of wealth and the centering of
the management of industries into fewer and fewer
hands make the trades union unable to cope with the
ever-growing power of the employing class, because
the trades unions foster a state of things which allows

144

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

one set of workers to be pitted against another set of
workers in the same industry, thereby helping defeat
one another in wage-wars. The trades unions aid the
employing class to mislead the workers into the belief
that the working class have interests in common with
their employers.

“ These sad conditions can be changed and the interests
of the working class upheld only by an organisation
formed in such a way that all its members in any one
industry, or in all industries, if necessary, cease work
whenever a strike or lock-out is on in any department
thereof, thus making an injury to one an injury to all ”.

The best idea of the characteristic work of the
I.W.W. will probably be conveyed by giving a descrip¬
tion of its greatest achievement, the Lawrence strike.
With that in mind, we shall be better able to form
an estimate of its function and importance. Fortun¬
ately, we are in a good position to do this. The
Bureau of Labour has published an admirable account
of the whole movement, and there are also the accounts
of the I.W.W. itself to corroborate the Government’s
testimony.1 This strike has been recognised all the
world over as an event of the greatest significance,
as the first big uprising of the new American pro¬
letariat, and as necessarily the precursor of many
such strikes in the future. Lawrence is an average
New England industrial town, with labour conditions
just like those in other textile towns. “ The strike
might have occurred anywhere ”. The conditions
then that made for the success of this strike must
often recur, and the problem is to find a method of
organisation to suit this class of labour.

1 See A Report on the Strike of Textile Workers in Lawrence,
Mass., in 1912, Washington, Government Printing Office, and
see also On the Firing Line, already quoted.

LABOUR IN AMERICA

145

The population of Lawrence in 1910 was 85,892,
of whom about 60,000 were dependent on the textile
mills for a living. Of the population over fourteen,
half actually worked in the mills, 73,928 were of
foreign birth or parentage, 41,375 actually foreign
born, and the 11,964 of native parentage included
negroes. Of those bom out of the States, 7696 were
French Canadians, 6693 Italians, 5943 Irish, 5659
English, 4352 Russian, etc. Before the strike very
few of the workers were organised. The Government
Report says that there were 2500 skilled members of
‘ craft ’ unions, some affiliated to the United Textile
Workers of America, who form part of the American
Federation of Labour, but others, such as the wood-
sorters and loom-fixers, in independent unions. On
paper, there were over 1000 members of the I.W.W.,
but the Report estimates their real strength as 300,
mostly in the Belgo-French branch, organised in
1905, which included over 200. There were also
English members, who opposed any strike till organ¬
isation was better, and there had been Polish and
Portuguese branches, which were dead or moribund.
A small Italian branch had been newly started in
1911. The figures given by the I.W.W. differ from
these. They state that only 1500 were organised at
all : 1200 in the Textile Workers’ Industrial Union,
belonging to the I.W.W. , and 300 in the United
Textile Workers’ Association, a part of the A. F. of
L., or in independent ‘ craft ’ Unions. But these
figures refer to actual strikers : the skilled workers,
even when they were forced to come out owing to
lack of work, mostly had nothing to do with the
Strike Committee.

The strike was then almost purely a revolt of un¬
skilled and unorganised workers. During the two

10

146

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

months it lasted, the number of strikers varied. It
began in January at 14,000, went up steadily to 23,000
in February, and came down, as certain classes of
workers began to go back, to 17,000 at the end of the
strike. The immediate cause was simple. A State law
had just been passed reducing the hours to be worked
by women and by children under eighteen from 56 to
54. On the occasion of a like reduction from 58 to 56
in 1910, the rates of wages had been put up to cover
the loss to the employees ; but on this occasion no
notices of a coming rise were posted at the works.
The management merely remained silent. In December
a deputation of skilled English-speaking workers
called on the management, and was informed that
there would be no rise. Early in January the I.W.W.
also sent a deputation to the American Woollen Com¬
pany, but the management referred them to the head
office at Boston, and nothing was done. It is clear,
however, that trouble was anticipated in some
quarters ; for a leading official of the Company wrote
from Boston to ask the management if there was not
danger of a strike, and the management confidently
replied that there was not.

At this stage, the dominant factor was the nationality
of the employees. It is clear that they did not under¬
stand in advance that a reduction in their pay would
be made. Communication between different sections
was very difficult, and, at that point, concerted
negotiation was impossible. But meetings of single
nationalities began to be held, especially among the
Italians ; and both Italians and Poles voted in favour
of a strike should the reduction occur. The employees
could not negotiate, and, naturally enough, the
employers made no move. On the first reduction
actually being made, the cessation of work was largely

LABOUR IN AMERICA

147

automatic, and in a day or two 14,000 workers were out.
At first, no further demands were made than the same
pay for 54 as had been given for 56 hours ; but soon
after the strike began, the Strike Committee, repre¬
senting the I.W.W., a few ‘ craft ’ Unionists, and the
great mass of unorganised labour, formulated demands
for a 15 per cent, increase in time and piece rates,
double time for overtime and no discrimination
against strikers. In February the skilled Unions,
which were idle, but not in the strike, first formulated
specific demands of their own. In the end the settle¬
ments generally granted a 5 per cent, increase on
piece work, rises of from one to two cents an hour on
time work, and time and a quarter for overtime, and
there was to be no favouring of non-strikers. The net
result was that 30,000 workers got increases of from
5 to 20 per cent, in wages, as well as certain minor
advantages.

The whole conduct of the strike was an extraordinary
instance of mass-action. The enormous barriers set
in the way by difference of language were overcome
in the main, not by artificial devices, but naturally.
There was nothing to do but wait ; and what had to be
done could be carried out, it was found, largely with¬
out the need for words. Nationalities were organised
separately ; but little intercommunication was required.
Many of the Strike Committee understood one another,
and that was enough. Mr. Haywood could make
himself understood by a crowd that did not know a
word he said, merely by waving his arms and shouting.
The workers wanted something so essentially simple
that this was enough, and it was mainly because their
demands were simple that they got what they asked.

The great problem for the Strike Committee was,
of course, the feeding of this great resourceless mass.

148

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

At the height of the strike, 50,000 persons were without
means of support, and the ‘ craft Unions,’ while they
were easily able to provide for their own members, did
nothing to help the others. Relief was accordingly
organised ; appeals were sent out and subscriptions
received from Trade Unions, Socialist bodies and
private individuals. Over the whole two months the
average receipts from these sources reached $1000 a
day, and sometimes $3000 were received in a single
day. With this money national soup-kitchens were
organised and relief distributed. The strikers took
another leaf out of the book of the C.G.T. Strikers’
children were sent off to sympathisers in New York,
Philadelphia and elsewhere, until on February 17 the
colonel of the troops stationed at Lawrence refused
to allow further departures save under regulations so
strict as to make them impossible. The departures
were made in large groups and everything was done to
attract, by this means, public attention and sympathy.
In spite of the prohibitions, forty more children were
sent off on March 8 to Philadelphia without inter¬
ference from the authorities.

When the strike broke out, considerable violence was
naturally expected from so unorganised a mass. In
fact, the Government Report admits that after the first
few days there was little serious trouble, though it
states that “ there was always danger ” of it. During
the whole strike, 296 arrests were made, 220 ending
in fines, and 54 in imprisonment. To anyone who
knows American police methods, these figures them¬
selves proclaim the absolutely peaceful nature of the
strike. Two persons were killed, a boy and a woman,
both shot by the police. The death of the woman
provoked the police prosecution of Joseph Ettor,
Chairman of the Strike Committee, for having caused

LABOUR IN AMERICA

149

her death by inciting to violence. Long after the
strike was over, he and his comrade, Giovanitti, were
triumphantly acquitted. The prosecution succeeded,
however, in removing him from the leadership of the
strike at its most critical point, and this was probably
all it aimed at. The death of the boy was never
even made the subject of inquiry. Mr. Ettor was
arrested on January 29, and his place at the head
of the Committee was taken by Mr. Llaywood.
Perhaps the most curious comment on the accusations
of violence made against the strikers was the con¬
demnation in May of a Lawrence man of business, not
connected with the strike, for placing dynamite in
a striker’s house and then declaring its presence to
the police. Such are American business methods. He
was fined $500. Such is the rigour of American
justice — for the rich.

Throughout the strike there was deepening hostility
between skilled and unskilled. A fortnight before the
strike ended, the craft Unions were already making
their own agreements with the employers and returning
to work without regard for the rest. The Government
Report sums up the position in these words :

“ While there was opposition on the part of the
employers to the organisation of this great mass of
unskilled, non-English-speaking employees, it is equally
true that the existing forms of Unions built up on
trade lines do not really make provision for the organisa¬
tion of this class of employees. The net result was that
such employees were left unorganised, with no ready
means of formulating any protest against the conditions
under which they felt themselves to be suffering.”

Hence, the Report concludes, they were led readily
to accept the revolutionary doctrines of the Industrial
Workers of the World.

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

150

“ It is obvious from the figures of earnings [given
in the Report] that the full-time earnings of a large
number of adult employees are entirely inadequate to
maintain a family. . . . These wages are not peculiar
to Lawrence, . . . and are not lower than elsewhere. . . .
The plain fact is that the textile industry, as far as
earmngs are concerned, is in large part a family in¬
dustry. . . . The normal family of five is compelled
to supply two wage-earners in order to secure the
necessaries of life ”.

We have dwelt at such length upon the Lawrence
strike because it is the typical conflict in which the
forces the American movement has to reckon with can
be seen in play. First come the ‘ craft Unions ’,
corporations of skilled workers cold-shouldering the
rest. After them, led indeed by English-speaking
and Franco-Belgian workers, comes the vast horde
of immigrants of every conceivable race and language
whom it is impossible to assimilate and seems nearly
hopeless to attempt to organise. The importance of
the Lawrence strike is that it has shown such organisa¬
tion to be possible. It is the beginning of a tre¬
mendous new industrial movement.

We have dwelt upon it also because it represents
the transformation of the I.W.W. At its foundation
in 1905, that organisation was not at all meant merely
to provide a means of expression for the lower races
of America. The stream of East European immigra¬
tion had hardly begun, and the dimensions of the
problem were not at all realised. The I.W.W. grew
out of the example set by the Western Federation
of Miners, and was intended not to supplement, but
to take the place of the American Federation of
Labour. It was in its origin ‘ Industrial Unionism ’
in the proper sense of the word. It looked forward

LABOUR IN AMERICA

151

to organising in single great Unions, linked up in a
single greater central body, all the various crafts
and processes of a single industry. It was to be not
merely an organisation of the unskilled, but of skilled
and unskilled together. It was to embrace in its
scope not one ‘ class but the whole of Labour. It was
indeed ‘ class ’ Unionism, but it was class Unionism on
an industrial basis. This aim will be quite clear to any¬
one who reads the published Report of the first congress,
held at Chicago in 1905, or who looks, say, at Mr.
Eugene Debs’ pamphlet on Industrial Unionism.

In fact, what has happened ? In the first place,
the American Federation of Labour has not perished.
Its membership is, as we have seen, one million and
three-quarters, while that of the I.W.W. was reckoned
in 1911 at 60,000, of whom only 10,437 actually paid
their dues.1 The Western Federation of Miners has
left the I.W.W. , and now forms part of the American
Federation of Labour. If it is to be judged by its
aims, the I.W.W. has been a lamentable failure.
But in reality this is not how it should be judged.
It has sought one thing, and found another : in
seeking to unite skilled and unskilled, it has found
out how to organise the great mass of the unskilled.
Little by little, it is recognising this transformation,
and accepting its new function. But, naturally, the
old phrases die hard, and old oppositions outlast
their meaning. The I.W.W. has been so long the
enemy of the A. F. of L. that it will take it long
to realise that there has ceased to be any real
reason for enmity. It has so long been proclaiming
a social theory that it finds it hard to haul down
its flag, and hoist new colours.

1 Since the Lawrence and Paterson strikes, the membership
has greatly increased. In 1913, the paying membership was
estimated at between 30,000 and 40,000.

152

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

It is, however, undeniable that this change of
function, this lucky accident by which the I.W.W.
has stumbled upon its real work, involves a great
transformation of idea and aim. The I.W.W.
began with a revolutionary theory of society ; it was
intended to subvert the existing order, and to bring
in the Workers’ Commonwealth. Its early history
was full of disputes between Socialists and Anarchists,
and, still more, between Socialists and Socialists.
But all this is already changing ; considerations about
the future state of Society have become, for the I.W.W.,
broadly speaking irrelevant. Its task is at present
not revolution, but reform : it must, with the materials
it has to work upon, aim, not at reconstructing society,
but at getting better wages. It is true that there is,
in the pamphlets and journals it publishes, a great
deal about ‘ The Abolition of the Wage System ’ ;
but this is mainly because the old ideas and the old
leaders are still uppermost. What the proletariat of
Eastern Europe comes to America for is wages, and
for them any suggestion of social revolution is mean¬
ingless. They are not American citizens enslaved
by capital ; they are, by their own will, hireling
sojourners, who have sold themselves for gain to the
devil of American Capitalism.

The first modification, then, is one of ends. In
spite of all its protestations, the I.W.W., to be effec¬
tive, will have to accept the wage system, in the sense
in which all meliorative organisations accept it. The
second change is one of method. From the days of
the strikes conducted by the Western Federation of
Miners in 1901-5, the new movement has been associ¬
ated with methods of violence. These methods will, no
doubt, still persist among the roving bands of adven¬
turous and disappointed labourers in the Far West ;

LABOUR IN AMERICA

153

but the Lawrence strike has taught the I.W.W. that
successful strikes can be conducted without violence,
even by the unskilled. Far less will consequently
be heard of ‘ sabotage ’ and similar devices, save in
the West, where every difference of opinion is an act
of war, and heads are always broken to save the
trouble of convincing them. This state of violence
will become far less the normal situation in Labour
disputes, and, especially in the industrial towns of
New England, there will be, in the near future, many
mass movements conducted without more violence
than there was at Lawrence.

With regard to conciliation and agreements, the
policy will change very little. Agreements tie the
workers’ hands, without preventing the employer
from discharging whom he pleases ; they may do for
a well-informed and well-drilled body of men like
a skilled craft Union ; but they are merely fatal in
the case of unorganised workers like the Lawrence
strikers. With such labour there are only two ways
of dealing — legislation or war. Both of these were
seen at work in the Lawrence strike, and both to¬
gether produced an effect which legislation at any
rate could not have had singly. But all attempts
at conciliation— -at Lawrence there were three —
failed hopelessly. Time contracts and conciliatory
methods are out of place where the sole value of
labour is its cheapness, and no importance at all is
attached to raising its standard of efficiency.

It has been seen that the I.W.W. , beginning with
• Industrial Unionism ’, has now changed its function
to a ‘ class ’ Unionism, which cannot properly be
described as industrial. It is, in fact, an impossibility,
in America, to unite in one organisation all the classes
of labour engaged in an industry. It may be possible

154

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

some day to secure co-operation between all sections
in case of need ; but there must be at least two different
forms of combination, following the line of the broad
cleavage in standard of living and class of work. The
function of the Industrial Workers of the World is
the organisation of the unskilled upon the broadest
possible basis. That this basis will be, for some
time at least, broader than the Industrial can be seen
easily from the actual structure of the I. WAV. Mr.
St. John, in his pamphlet,1 begins by laying down the
theoretical structure. At the base, there is to be in
every industry a series of Local Industrial Unions,
which are always to be the units of negotiation with
the employers. These Local Unions are to be divided
into shop, district, departmental and language 2
branches, but never into ‘ craft ’ locals. These Local
Industrial Unior.s are to be combined in National
Industrial Unions and also in District Industrial
Councils.3 National Unions, in turn, are to be com¬
bined in Industrial Departments representing allied
industries, and these finally are to be united in the
central organisation, over which there is in time to
be one great world-wide Union.

Such is the ideal organisation ; but the actuality
is different. There is no trace of the functioning
of Industrial Councils, and there is only one National
Industrial Union, that of the Textile Workers, which
we have already seen at work in Lawrence. In
everything save theory, the I.W.W. is the ' One Big
Union ’ which is a denial of the ‘ Industrial ’ basis,

1 The I.W.W., by V. St. John.

s Here the difficulty of organising workers of many nation¬
alities is to some extent met.

3 Here the French influence intervenes and causes imitation
of the Bourses.

LABOUR IN AMERICA

155

a pure ‘ class ’ Unionism. But this makes less
difference than might be expected. American towns
tend very much to be devoted solely or mainly to a
single industry, and in such cases the complicated
structure which the I.W.W. favours in theory be¬
comes unnecessary. In France, we found that in¬
dustry was organised far more locally than in England ;
but America, especially where the unskilled workers
are concerned, is infinitely more local still. Here, how¬
ever, the localism arises not from the backwardness,
but from the prodigious development, of industrial
life. These mushroom cities of one industry are the
latest product of American ‘ hustle ’, and result from
an unparalleled concentration of industrial processes.
The trust creates a higher ‘ localism ’ ; organisation is
so huge and so concentrated that it splits up by
localities, where before it could be dealt with nationally.
The ‘ locals ’ of the I.W.W. are then the storm-centre of
its being ; it is organised against the employer, and
as he concentrates his business in one place, so they
must make their Unions strong locally. The aim
is to call out the whole personnel of the factory,
at any rate with the exception of a few skilled workers,
and accordingly the organisation must follow local
lines. The same cause leads to subdivision along
‘ shop ’ lines ; all the workers in a locality form the
higher unit, all those in a single shop the lower. Thus
either a ‘ shop ’ or a locality can be stopped, and the
workers are organised as strongly as they can possibly
be. Mr. W. E. Trautmann, in a pamphlet entitled
Why Strikes are Lost, has clearly shown the necessity
for both these forms of organisation ; and the Lawrence
strike is indeed the clearest testimony. For effective
action, the workers must have, within their local
Union, not merely language branches for those of

156

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

different nationalities, but also ‘ shop ’ organisations,
each covering the business of a single employer.
Nearly all the strikes from 1905 to 1912 were
failures, and Mr. Trautmann goes through the
melancholy catalogue and traces the failure to sec¬
tionalism. He is indeed dealing mainly with the
sins of the ‘ craft ’ Unions ; but all the arguments
hold in favour of the ‘ shop ’ and local industrial
forms of organisation.

All through this inquiry, though we have often
seemed to be near the border of it, we have said
nothing of Syndicalism. Yet it will certainly be
asked if there is no Syndicalism in the United States.
As in England, there is and there is not : the theorists
of Industrial Unionism, Mr. English Walling, for
instance, have been a good deal influenced by French
writers and ideas ; but these have not sunk at all
deep, and on the rank and file they have made no
impression whatsoever. The I. WAV. at any rate
should not be much occupied with theories ; it has a
work to do, but that work will not admit of being
expressed as a social theory. It is a practical task
of limited extent ; it is not a new construction of
Society, or indeed an ‘ -ism ’ of any kind.

Outside the I.W.W., however, there is Syndicalism of
a sort. There is a body called The Syndicalist League of
North America1 which “is not a labor Union, and allows
no affiliation with labor Unionism ”, though it has local
and industrial branches. It is, in fact, like our own
Industrial Syndicalist Education League, a propagand¬
ist body, which “works for education in revolutionism”.
It accuses thel.W.W. of being “democratic and statist”,
and of having “a Socialist origin and taint”, and stands

1 There are also other similar bodies about which little
information is to be got.

LABOUR IN AMERICA

157

itself for the negation of all Government.1 It looks
to the taking over of industry by the workers, and,
with this end in view, in theory supports the ‘ shop ’
against the ‘ Trade Union ’ as the unit of organisation.
That is to say, it still believes in Co-operation of
Producers, and hardly improves on the old ideal of the
‘ self-governing workshop ’ by turning it into that of
the " autonomous shop Like our Industrial Syndi¬
calist Education League, it is very apt to talk non¬
sense when it theorises ; but it also resembles that
body in combining with airy theory a certain amount
of practical work. Its real importance lies in the
recognition that the I.W.W. has failed to solve the
problem of industrial organisation. If the American
Federation of Labour "has no message” for the un¬
skilled, neither have the Workers of the World any for
the skilled. The Syndicalist League of North America
and similar bodies, perceiving this, have turned back
to the American Federation of Labour and are seeing
again what can be done with it. The recent history of
the Labour movement in America is the history of
a renewed attempt to reform the A. F. of L. from
within.

This, then, is what Syndicalism means in America.
Syndicalists are urged to join the craft Unions and
turn them into industrial Unions from within. The
moral of the failure of craft Unionism is taken as
being not that the workers should form a new associa¬
tion outside the old bodies, but that old Unions should
be amalgamated on an industrial basis. Mr. W. Z.
Foster, writing in the English Syndicalist ,2 says :

" Amongst many of the Syndicalists, the sentiment
is strong and growing ceaselessly that the tactics

1 Quotations from E. C. Ford and W. Z. Foster’s Syndicalism.

2 March 1913.

158

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

followed by the I.W.W. are bad, and that endeavours
should be made inside the A. F. of L. ; that it is in
the existing Unions that the Syndicalists must struggle
without ceasing to accomplish the triumph of their
methods.”

This change of front — for the present Syndicalists
have, as a rule, been Industrial Workers first — is due
mainly to the change in the I.W.W. , but also largely
to a change within the American Federation of Labour.
In the previous discussion of the A. F. of L., the
criticism was put strongly, from the I.W.W. point of
view, and it was suggested that there might be quali¬
fications to make later on. It is not necessary to
withdraw any of the charges that were then made, but
only in one respect to modify them. The A. F. of L.
is not so purely or irrevocably a federation of craft
Unions as might be believed. It has long included
certain Unions which have an industrial basis, and
approximate more or less nearly to being real in¬
dustrial Unions. Such, for example, are the United
Brewery Workers’ Union and the United Mine
Workers’ Association.1 A further breach was made
in the old system when the Western Federation of
Miners, who, in spite of their name, are a LTnion and
not a Federation, demanded a charter from the A. F.
of L. There was a heated debate at the Annual
Conference, in which the forces of reaction took the
field against the Western Federation; but the recruit
was too valuable to be lost, and in the end it was ad¬
mitted. The principle of craft Unionism was already
showing signs of collapse, and the Industrial Workers
had been forced to start a campaign against “ fake

1 Moreover, the craft Unions are linked up in strong central
and local industrial Federations, on which the success of the
A. F. of L. largely depends.

LABOUR IN AMERICA

*59

Industrial Unionism in the A. F. of L ”.1 Diffi¬
culties had long arisen in connection with strikes,
when newly organised strikers demanded admission
into the A. F. of L. For instance, in the 1910 Car
Strike at Philadelphia — when, incidentally, the un¬
organised workers struck, while the organised workers,
as often, stayed at work and ‘ blacklegged ’ — the un¬
organised workers demanded a collective charter and
refused to be sorted out into craft Unions. The
A. F. of L was forced to grant their demand, but the
President of the American Association of Street and
Electric Car Employees is known to have said at the
time that they could “ easily be allotted to their
respective craft Unions when the strike was over”.2
Other cases are quoted in which men who had won
advantages by striking together were then, through
the A. F. of L., tied down by sectional contracts which
made such a strike impossible for the future. At
Chicago, for instance, the packing-house workers are
divided up among fourteen National Trade Unions
belonging to the American Federation.

Such tyranny on the part of Mr. Samuel Gompers
and the ‘ Old Gang ’ gets every day more difficult.
The situation is still further complicated by the
determined efforts that are now being made by the
orthodox Socialist Party to capture the Federation.
Once described by the Wall Street Journal as “ the
strongest bulwark against Socialism in America ”, the
A. F. of L., Mr. A. M. Simons holds, is turning to
Socialism, “ modifying its form and changing its
tactics ”. Of the members of the Socialist Party
who are engaged in production and distribution,

1 In the Firing Line.

2 Trautmann, in Why Strikes are Lost , quoting the Tageblatt
of Philadelphia, a German Trades Council journal.

160 THE WORLD OF LABOUR

66 per cent, are Unionists, and of these 44 per cent,
are in the American Federation of Labour, 5 per cent,
in the I.W.W., and 13 per cent, in other Unions.
The Socialist Party has thus a strong nucleus of
support within the A. F. of L., and every year at the
Trade Union Congress there is a trial of strength.
The Socialists have flung themselves in on the side of
Industrial Unionism, though officially they refuse to
commit themselves to any policy. In January 1910,
their official Bulletin declared that “ the Socialist
Party does not seek to dictate to organised labour in
matters of internal organisation and Union policy.
It recognises the necessary autonomy of the Union
movement in the economic field, as it insists on main¬
taining its own autonomy in the political field. It is
confident that in the school of experience organised
labour will as rapidly as possible develop the most
effective forms of organisation and methods of action.”
But in practice, the younger members of the Party are
all in favour of Industrial Unionism. It was at their
instance that the following motion was laid before the
1913 Congress of the A. F. of L.

“ That, wherever practical, one organisation should
have jurisdiction over an industry, and where, in the
judgment of the men actually involved, it is not
practical, then the committee recommends that they
organise and federate in a department and work
together in such a manner as to protect, as far as
possible, the interests of all connecting branches.”

This resolution, strongly opposed by the ‘ Old
Gang ’, was defeated by 10,934 votes to 5929, which
were the Congress’s usual figures for measures against
Mr. Gompers’ policy. However, it is contended that
the defeat was largely due to the method of voting,
which favours small, at the expense of large, Unions.

LABOUR IN AMERICA

161

The large Unions are now mostly in favour of the
industrial basis.1 It is coming to be regarded as
inevitable that the Socialists should shortly gain
control of the A. F. of L., and oust the ‘Old Gang’.
When they have done this, Industrial Unionism will
be merely a matter of time.

This Industrial Unionism, it should be remarked,
differs from that of the Chicago I.W.W. and still
more from that of the Deleonite I.W.W., which has
been chiefly in evidence in this country. From the
point of view of the I.W.W., all ‘ Industrial Unionism ’
within the American Federation of Labour must be
‘ fake ’ Industrial Unionism. It is, in fact, the
Union of all the skilled crafts of a single industry
in one organisation, and not, except in rare cases,
of all the workers in an industry. In the textile
trades, for example, there will be no attempt to get
in the whole mass of immigrant labour, which will be
left to the I.W.W. The American Federation will
organise the skilled, and perhaps also the unskilled
so far as they are of like nationality and standards of
life ; it will not attempt to realise the I.W.W. motto,
‘ One Union for all — and once a Union man, always a
Union man ’. Nor will it aim at the universal transfer
card and initiation fee which the I.W.W. advocates.2
The Industrial Unionism which is gradually conquering
the English-speaking world of Labour in America is
exactly similar to the amalgamation movement in
England, and has many of the same difficulties to
contend with.

All the difficulties it has not, though it has others

1 W. Z. Foster in the Syndicalist, March 1913.

2 Tom Mann, who toured the U.S.A. in 1913, strongly
urged the need for co-operation on these lines between the
A.F. of L. and the I.W.W.

II

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

162

as serious — for the American Unions, even among the
skilled workers, have not dealt much in ‘ benefits V
They are fighting organisations, and their benefits
take the form of high wages, monopolies of labour
and security of employment. There are therefore
less problems arising out of different scales of con¬
tributions and benefits than in this country ; but this
is counterbalanced by the extraordinary spirit of
sectionalism that prevails. Still, there seems little
doubt that in the most important industries the
industrial form of organisation will soon carry the
day, and the Socialists triumph over Mr. Gompers
and his friends. There will then be two separate
Industrial Unionisms in America ; but neither will
be what is generally meant by Industrial Unionism,
and still more, neither will be that pure Class Unionism
which unites all the working-classes, irrespective of
industry, in one big organisation. There are thus
four different brands of Industrial Unionism, even
vuthout taking into account rival methods of defining
the limits of industries. In America, two at least of
these are prevailing ; but neither the doctrines of the
old Chicago I.W.W. leaders nor Deleonite Class
Unionism is any longer likely to make headway. The
two forms that survive are the creation of new Unions
solely for the unskilled, and the amalgamation of
existing Unions mainly for the skilled. In the latter
process at least we in England may take an interest ;
for, though industrial concentration has gone even

1 The I.W.W. of course does not deal in benefits at all.
For the A. F. of L. see on this point Werner Sombart’s Socialism
and, the Social Movement (English translation). The figures
published by the A. F. of L. are, however, misleading, as they
leave out of account large sums expended by the local branches
of the various Associations.

LABOUR IN AMERICA

163

farther in America than here, the tendencies that are
to be found in the A. F. of L. are in many respects
equally applicable to our own Trade Union difficulties.
Sectionalism is out of date here as well as in America,
and, as we have no completely distinct class of un¬
skilled labour in this country, we may well hope that
Industrial Unionism, if it be practicable, may afford
a more perfect solution of our problems than we have
found that it can provide in America. The existence
of a strong tendency in America to organise industrially
is an additional incitement to us not to leave pro¬
posals for Industrial Unionism at home unwelcomed
and unexamined. So long as fusion and not destruc¬
tion be the method adopted, we may reasonably hope
from that source for a great accession of strength.
The difficulties in the way may of course be in some
cases insuperable ; and it will be our task later on to
examine them. But the American movement is at
least a hint of the direction in which we should look
for a solution of the problems that are constantly
perplexing us at home.

It will be well in this place to clear up a very general
misconception, because here its absurdity is most
easily seen. It is often assumed without examination
that the object of the industrial form of organisation
is to allow national strikes in any industry to be
called whenever a dispute arises. To an American,
as to a German, such a suggestion would at once
appear in all its absurdity ; to an Englishman, fresh
from the Coal Strike and the Railway Strike, it is not
at first sight so unnatural. It will therefore be well
to see what Americans have to say of the conduct of
strikes. We must take our examples mainly from
the I.W.W., and first from Mr. Vincent St. John.

“ The I. WAV. recognise that the day of successful

164

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

long strikes is past. Under all ordinary circumstances,
a strike that is not won in four to six weeks cannot
be won by remaining out longer. In trustified
industry the employer can better afford to fight one
strike that lasts six months than he can six strikes
that take place in that period.”

Whatever may be thought of the last part of this
statement, the first is very largely true. It is the
employers’ interest to keep on a strike till the men
are utterly exhausted and their organisation falls to
pieces : and, to defeat this, the men must learn to
return to work when they feel they cannot win, with¬
out waiting to be starved into submission. It must
be realised that the strikes in question are not national,
but local. Except in a very few small industries, a
national strike in America is unthinkable. The locality
is self-contained, and the strike is effective if it com¬
pletely covers the locality. But even there, the
workers cannot hope to be able to outlast the capitalist.
They can only get concessions by striking suddenly
when it will be most inconvenient for him, and so
cutting off work at the time when profits are greatest.
Only by such methods can highly concentrated capital
be met and defeated.

On the whole then, unlike our own as the American
movement appears at first sight, there are lessons to
be learnt from it and resemblances to be noticed on a
closer scrutiny. It is, however, least important for us
where it is most interesting in itself. We have no
class of workers in any degree comparable with the
great new proletarian army of the United States, and
adjurations addressed to our Unions, in the hope of
making them mould themselves after such a pattern,
are bound to be useless and ill-conceived. It is not
until the cleavage in the American world of Labour,

LABOUR IN AMERICA

165

the absolute division between skilled and unskilled,
is properly realised, that we are in a position to tell
what may be of use to us and guide us in solving our
own problems. For the American movement is as
characteristically American as ours is characteristically
English, and it is a truth to be remembered that
institutions are born and not made. American
' Syndicalism ’, if we choose to call it so, is for America,
as French Syndicalism is for France. The greatest
service that can be done us by the intelligent study of
foreign Labour movements is to save us at least from
becoming cosmopolitans.

CHAPTER VI

FURTHER LESSONS FROM ABROAD— THE
GENERAL STRIKE

France and America have been dealt with in such
detail because they are new and wide movements, of
just the sort that most readily exercises a widespread
influence. They were further pointed out to us as
worthy of investigation because they were the begetters
respectively of the Syndicalist and of the Industrial
Unionist movements, whose absorption and reconcilia¬
tion we are now actually witnessing. There is no need
for our present purpose to treat of any other foreign
Labour movement with equal detail ; for neither have
the rest so much that is fresh and distinctive, nor is
there any question of the importation, at present, of
any new gospel from abroad. Neither Germany, with
its elaborate and efficient Trade Unionism, nor Italy,
with a growing force of revolt behind it, is likely to
convey to any body of men in this country the idea of
a new gospel. The problem for Trade Unionists in
Great Britain is now, not the discovery of new sources
of inspiration, but the utilisation of the sources it has
already recognised.

While, however, it is unnecessary to go into detail
concerning these other movements, it is worth while
to pick out a few points in which we may learn from
them useful lessons, and discover either what to seek

166

LABOUR IN ITALY

167

or what to avoid. Of Italy, interesting in itself though
the Italian movement undoubtedly is, we shall say
little. Italy is above all a Latin country, and, in
the realm of ideas, its kinship with France is remark¬
able. On the theoretical side, Italy has accepted
and developed the gospel of Syndicalism almost in the
French form. M. Sorel’s influence has been there
also very great, and, as Italian Socialism has always
been much devoted to the criticism and interpretation
of Marxian doctrine, his neo-Marxism has probably
had even more effect on theory there than in France.
In spite, however, of these theoretical impulses, the
actual Labour movement in Italy seems to be going
its own way. In industry, it is, in the main, a new
country ; conditions of labour are, in most parts,
shockingly bad, and organisation among the workers,
though not a new thing, is only beginning to be really
important. The Italian movement is still mainly in the
experimental stage; the circumstances of industry allow
of no co-operation between the workers of the South,
where modern methods have not greatly developed,
and the factory- workers of the North ; and differences
of theory arise about labour organisation where differ¬
ences are really only of circumstance and stage of
development. Italy is not, industrially speaking, a
unity ; and, until it becomes one, it cannot have a
strong national Labour movement, possessed of a
defined character and a common ideal.

The first lesson, therefore, we should learn about
Italy is not to take much notice when Syndicalists,
or any other class of persons, call our attention to the
wonders that are being accomplished there. It would
be possible to dismiss the whole Italian movement
without more said, had not an article in the English
Review for June 1912 caused widespread misunder-

i68

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

standing and raised many false hopes. In that
number appeared an article entitled ‘ Syndicalism
by Odon For and F. M. Atkinson. It dealt mainly,
though not exclusively, with the supposed ‘ syndicalisa-
tion ’ of the industry of Bottle-Blowing in Italy. The
workers, it appeared, had struck for better wages, and
then, as the ‘ trust ’ which employed them would not
yield, had succeeded in starting factories of their own,
owned and controlled by the workers. This, it was
announced, was the first great triumph of Syndicalism,
a foretaste of the coming order. Soon all the workers
would be owning their own factories, the capitalist
would have been expropriated, and the Syndicalist
State would be in full blast. In point of fact, the
Co-operative (not Syndicalist) Glass-blowers have
no connection with Syndicalism, and Italy still goes
on in the good old capitalist way.

All questions of the success or failure of such enter¬
prises apart, there is here nothing that can reason¬
ably be called Syndicalism. We in England are
familiar enough with the sporadic appearances and
nearly invariable failures of the ‘ self-governing work¬
shop ’, and the experience of Continental countries is
almost exactly the same. Why these experiments
fail we may see better hereafter ; it is enough for the
moment that they have behind them a long record of
failures, and hardly any successes. The Bottle-blowers,
in the course of a strike, founded such a factory, the
only distinctive feature being that it was founded by
the Union itself, though it was a separate organisation
from the Union. The new factory enjoyed, for a
time, considerable success, and further factories were
started in connection with it. But from the first it
was Co-operative and not Syndicalist, and even its
co-operation was not of the purest sort. Many of the

LABOUR IN ITALY

169

workers were indeed shareholders, but their share
depended on their investment, and did not go neces¬
sarily along with the work they did. In the Syndi¬
calist idea, the Union would control the industry, and
the worker would be, merely because he worked in it,
a part controller of it ; here the worker, because he had
invested money, was a part proprietor of the factory.
He was a worker, and a shareholder ; but the two
facts were not essentially connected. The concern
was then merely an instance of Co-operation of Pro¬
ducers, and even as such it was by no means a pure
instance. All along, the workers who were share¬
holders employed others who were not ; they were, in
fact, an aristocracy of working-proprietors, and some¬
times even, as time went on, of non-working proprietors.
Such concerns have no more to do with Syndicalism
than Sir William Lever’s famous ‘ advertisement ’
village, Port Sunlight. They may, or may not, be
successful commercial experiments ; but the less
notice that is taken of them by revolutionaries the
better for clear thinking, and the worse for friends of
‘ things as they are

With that, we may leave Italy with a clear con¬
science. Its Labour movement is in itself deeply
interesting, but it throws no light on the situation
in this country, and its interest is that of rudimentary
rather than developed organisation.

Germany stands quite at the other end of the line
of advance. Its Trade Unions are as firmly estab¬
lished as our own, and far better organised against
the employer. Modelled in the first instance mainly
on the English Unions, the German ‘ Gewerkschaften ’
have grown so fast that they now equal them in
effective membership, without losing strength from
the subdivision of their forces into a very great number

170

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

of small and inefficient ' local ’ or ' sectional ’ Unions.
They have secured this comprehensive and simple
organisation largely through starting late, with the
initial backing of a strong political Labour movement ;
but, whatever their origin, it is indisputable that
their complete solidarity makes them much more
formidable than they could possibly be without it.
In spite of all the difficulties monarchical Germany
throws in the way of effective industrial action, the
German Unions have been powerful instruments
for the raising of wages and for the education in class-
consciousness of the industrial proletariat.

It is, of course, true that German Trade LTnionism
has had to face difficulties that have not appeared in
England. There are in Germany three different and
opposing forms of trade combination, each with its
central commission or Federation, without counting
minor varieties. But, in reality, the history of in¬
dustrial organisation in Germany is the history of
the ‘ Free ’ or ‘ Social-Democratic ’ Unions. Neither
the ‘ Christian ’ Unions nor the ‘ Hirsch-Duncker ’ or
‘ Liberal ’ Unions are really of any great importance
in comparison. The ‘ Christian ’ Unions are indeed
growing rapidly ; but the ‘ Hirsch-Duncker ’ Gewerk-
vereine are stationary, and will probably gradually
disappear.

There is no need to recapitulate the early struggles
of Trade Unionism in Germany. The movement
first arose in the ’sixties, but in 1874, owing partly
to official repression, and partly to the quarrels of the
followers of Marx and Lassalle, the first Trade Union
Federation perished. Attempts to revive the Unions
after the realisation of Socialist unity in. 1875 were
easily repressed by the Government, and in 1879
the Anti-Socialist Law made effective trade combina-

LABOUR IN GERMANY

171

tion, as well as political action, impossible. It was
not till 1890, the year in which the General Commission
of Trade Unions was founded, that German Unionism
had any chance of becoming imporant. From 1894
to the present time, the growth of the ‘ Social-Demo¬
cratic ' Unions has been continuous ; from having a
quarter of a million members they had come to include
two and a half millions in 1911.

The ‘ Christian ’ Unions were established in 1893,
in opposition to the new ' Socialist ’ Unions. They
include both Catholics and Protestants, but have
been from the first mainly Catholic. One of their
great sources of weakness, which grows worse rather
than better, is internal religious bickering. The last
report of the Social-Democratic Unions is highly
jubilant over the quarrel between the Christian Unions
and the Catholic Church. These Unions were origin¬
ally intended to be peaceful, and were founded by
agreement with the employers ; but with time they
are being driven by force of circumstances to take
action in the same manner as the ‘ free ’ Unions. In
fact, the Catholics and reactionaries who founded
them have often got more than they bargained for.
These Unions have the less effect in weakening the
hold of the Social-Democrats, because their member¬
ship, which is in all under 350,000, comes mainly
from districts in which the Socialists cannot hope at
present to make much headway. By far the largest
body within the Christian Unions is that of the Miners,
who numbered 78,000 in 1909, since when there has
been a great increase. These Miners come mostly
from coalfields the Social-Democrats, who had organ¬
ised 113,000 Miners in 1909, 1 could not possibly
affect.

1 120,000 in 191 1.

172

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

The existence of the * Christian ’ and ' Hirsch-
Duncker ’ Unions, together with such minor bodies
as the ‘ Syndicalist ’ (formerly ‘ Anarchist ') and the
many independent Unions, does not then make much
difference to the Social-Democrats in their task of
organisation. The membership of the three chief
organisations in 1911 speaks for itself.

Free (' Social-Democratic ') Unions, . . 2,320,986

Christian Unions, ..... 340,9 37
‘ Hirsch-Duncker ' Unions, . . . 107,743

With that much history, we can proceed at once to
review the chief points in the German organisation
which are of interest to us. It is often urged that the
‘ Social-Democratic ’ Unions are not really ‘ free ’, but
mere tools in the hands of the political party. Such
an accusation could only be made in complete ignorance
of their structure and history. It is, indeed, true
that the German Unions were enabled to reach an
almost perfect form of organisation so rapidly mainly
because they had the immense influence of the Social¬
ists behind them. English Trade Unionism, wonderful
as its growth was, grew up spasmodically and almost
at haphazard, without guidance from a centre. Its
central links are indeed still very weak, and the in¬
dependence of each Union is not mere self-govern¬
ment, but vicious individualism. In Germany the
historical evolution has been completely different.
There were indeed Unions before the foundation of
the Central Commission in 1890 ; but, broadly speak¬
ing, the Trade Union movement owes its whole
growth, and still more the whole form of its organisa¬
tion, to ideas fostered at the centre. It is not so
much a federation, constituted by the coming to¬
gether of independent units, as a devolution from a

LABOUR IN GERMANY

173

centre, a ‘ class ’ organisation broken up into separate
branches for convenience and utility It can be said,
far more than British, or even than French, Unionism,
to have a concerted policy directed from the centre,
and conscious of the aims and methods to be
pursued.

This centralised control of policy, however, is far
from implying political subservience on the part of
the Unions. It has been seen throughout that either
the capture of the Unions for politics, or the capture
of the Socialistic Party for Trade Unionism, would
be fatal to both. The Socialists saw that it would
be to their advantage, and to the good of Labour as
a whole, that there should be a strong Trade Union
movement. They saw, no doubt, also that such a
movement would be electorally of the greatest help
to them. But they did not make the mistake of the
followers of M. Jules Guesde in France, and try to
collar the movement wholly for politics. They realised
that the best chance of harmonious working lay in a
clear separation of function, within a recognised
unity of purpose. They made no conditions that
members of the Free Unions must be Social-Democrats,
nor did they attempt to give the Socialist Party a
false appearance of strength by tacking the Trade
Unions forcibly on to its tail. As a result, they have
at once the strongest Socialist Party and the strongest
Trade Union movement in the world.

No doubt, this was made very much easier for them
by the political condition of the German Empire. In
an industrial country that makes no pretence of being
a democracy it is far easier to build up democratic
movements and rouse strong democratic feeling.
There is less, on the side of his opponents, to deceive
the German worker into siding with his enemies.

174

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

The German is, moreover, at all times a very easy
person to organise. There was therefore the less
trouble in getting men to join two separate organisa¬
tions, and play their part in both sections of the
Labour movement, working independently. The
Socialist Party had, in fact, no reason for hesitating
to give the Trade Unions full autonomy at the outset,
and leave them to take care of their own prospects
and organisation.

This in no way invalidates the conclusion that the
influence of the Socialist Party in German Trade
Unionism has been enormous, and all to the good.
Germany is indeed the only country that has in
effect realised the Greater Unionism. In Great
Britain there are now about three and a quarter
million Trade Unionists and about eleven hundred
Unions, and, whereas the membership is increasing
rapidly, the number of Unions is decreasing only very
slowly. In Germany, the two and a half millions of the
Free Unions were divided into only 51 Unions in 1911,
and, while the number of members was growing fast,
the number of Unions was as sensibly diminishing.1
Since 1906 the number of Unions has dropped from
66 to 51, and further amalgamations maybe expected.
This process is largely due to Social-Democratic
influence, which enables ideal pressure to be put on
German Unionists in a manner that is not conceivable
here.

When the list of the German Unions is compared

1 The official figures for 1909 gave the number of * Social-
Democratic’ Unions as 57, and the number of ‘ Hirsch-Duncker ’
Gewerkvereine as 2102. The Social-Democratic figures are for
close national amalgamations (11,725 branches) ; the others
for Unions more loosely federated. This close amalgamation,
we shall see, is the strength of the Free Unions.

LABOUR IN GERMANY

175

with any list of the great British Trade Unions,
several important differences at once appear. The
first, and the most significant, is, of course, the great
disparity in numbers. In nearly every case, except
those of the Miners and the Railwaymen, we have
at least several Unions trying to do exactly the same
things. Within the German organisation, there is
no single instance of such overlapping. Sectionalism
there is, as in the case of the three or four Printers’
Unions that still exist ; but the cases that call for
further amalgamation are always those in which two
different branches of a single industry are catered
for by different organisations. The process of fusion
among such Unions is going on steadily, and though
difficult marginal cases must arise — that of the Ships’
Carpenters, for instance — it may be regarded as certain
that the process will, at no very remote date, be
practically completed. This does not, of course, mean
that the total number of Unions in Germany is 51,
and the total number in England 1168. The figures
are not in any sense comparable. We have here no
ready method of distinguishing between real national
Unions and little local Unions, which figure side by
side without distinction in the Board of Trade and
Registrars’ Reports. As an additional complication,
many local Unions have grandiloquent national
names, and their real condition is only betrayed by
their membership. No doubt a complete return of
all the Trade Unions in Germany would present an
appearance even more absurd than the long list of
our Unions. This, however, does not at all invalidate
what we have said. In the ‘ Social-Democratic ’
Unions, nearly three million workers really work
together in 51 National Unions ; according to the
figures for 1910, our 51 biggest Unions had only

176

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

just over 1,500,000 members, and these neither
covered the same range of trades, nor worked
together with any cohesion like that of the German
Unions.

In form, then, the German Unions are almost
perfectly co-ordinated amalgamations, sometimes on
Industrial ’, and sometimes on ‘ occupational ’ lines.
But, in saying this, we have not said all. It has
been the weakness of many Syndicalists and Industrial
Unionists that, in urging the ‘ industrial ’ or ‘ greater ’
as opposed to the ‘ craft ’ structure, they have set
their thoughts so much upon the object of organising
all the workers as a ‘ class ’ that they have quite
forgotten to provide for the representation of sectional
and ‘ trade ’ or ‘ craft ’ interests within the Greater
Union. In the case of the Industrial Workers of
the World, as we saw, such an omission did not
matter, because none of the workers concerned were
more than half-skilled ; but as soon as highly skilled
workers have to be organised, sectional problems
become very important. The German workers, while
securing united action, have therefore taken great
care to get sectional interests well looked after. This
has been done, not by means of ‘ craft ’ autonomy,
which cannot but make concerted action impossible,
but by giving adequate representation to sectional
interests. It is simplest to take an actual example,
though the precise formation, of course, differs very
greatly according to the circumstances of each
industry. The Metal Workers’ Union, with 515,145
members, is divided into 451 branches, n districts,
and 26 ‘ craft ’ sections. The District Council, to
which all disputes are referred in the first instance,
is elected on a ‘ sectional ’ basis, so that all branches
of the occupation are represented. In the National

LABOUR IN GERMANY

177

Executive, districts, and not ‘ crafts ’, are the units
of representation.1

By this means the difficulty of reconciling sectional
interests has been overcome, and a ready means of
settling disputes within the industry devised. At
the same time, sectional interests have not been
given too much power, and concerted action has not
been impaired. The District Council represents all
sections of the industry ; but its sectional basis is
found to be enough to give the sections proper re¬
presentation. The main need of a section in a big
industrial Union is to secure a proper understanding,
on the part of the authorities, of its peculiar require¬
ments ; and this is done within the whole Union by
the District Council. It is the task which the Trades
Councils in England, in spite of all endeavours,
continually fail to accomplish. In the Trades
Council, the sections are represented, but there is
nothing to reconcile them ; in the German District
Council (of one industry or group of occupations only,
it is true) interests are at once represented and
reconciled.

This machinery alone would not be enough to
secure smooth working. Two important points re¬
main to be dealt with. These are, first, the position
of the officials, and secondly, the question of local
and central control of strikes. A great deal of the
discontent in our Trade Unions has been directed
against the officials, who are said to have hung back,
and aimed at peace at any price. There will be more
to say of this when we come to speak of England
directly ; it is here enough to declare that, roughly

1 W. Stephen Sanders, Industrial Organisation in Germany —
a pamphlet of which the author has very kindly allowed me
to make use throughout this chapter.

12

178

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

speaking, every movement gets the leaders it deserves.
If the rank and file really and consistently wanted
a fighting policy, they could soon force their leaders
to give it them. This attitude, however, is important
for our present purpose only because German Unionism
is often distrusted on account of the enormous power
that rests in the hands of officials. The governing
body of the Union is the paid Executive Committee
representing the districts. This Executive has the
last word in all questions of policy. If a District
Council wishes to call a strike, it has to submit its
proposals to the Executive Committee, which has
full power to decide for or against. Moreover, it
seems that, in the districts also, the power of the
paid officials is immense. When a question comes
before the District Committee, before a decision is
reached, the officials are asked to report upon it,
and their report seems generally to be adopted.
There is no question of a ballot of all the members
before a strike is called in some section or other. As
in the case of our new National Union of Railwaymen,
the Executive Committee decides.

Before our ‘ advanced ’ Trade Unionists condemn
this method, there are further considerations to put
before them. First, the machinery for enabling
districts to make their representations to head¬
quarters is far better conceived than any our Unions
possess. The Executive Committee is only called
upon to decide with full knowledge of the case, and
of the feeling of the district. The whole matter has
already been argued out thoroughly in the District
Council, and the Executive Committee seldom goes
directly against local opinion. The control is, in
fact, far less oppressive than it looks, and everything
is done, by the provision of ample opportunity for

LABOUR IN GERMANY

179

discussion, to make the chances of friction as slight
as possible.

Secondly, it should be borne in mind that the men
make the movement. Every developed movement
is bound to require strong officials, and to give them
a great deal of power. We have seen that it is for
the want of such a body of officials that the French
movement is weak and ill-directed. The question
for Trade Unionists is not how to get rid of their
officials, but how best to control them ; and it is
quite false logic to argue, because our officials have
disappointed us, that we have to make short work
of officialism. The German movement has, in great
measure, both strong officials and effective control.
It has shown that in the Greater Unionism, it is, in
the end, far easier to combine the two than in sectional
Unionism. But our common sense should tell us
that there can be no popular control without popular
will to control, and it is this that is lacking in England,
and, to a great extent, present in Germany.

In close 'connection with the position of the officials
is the ‘ strike policy ’ of the German Unions. Here,
too, we find that the Greater Unionism in practice
comes into direct conflict with the theoretical In¬
dustrial Unionism that is commonly preached in this
country. We are often told that the Greater Unionism
alone makes the ‘ general strike ’ possible, and even
the practice of the Unions that are organised on the
widest basis lends colour to the view that the object
of such a method of organisation is to make the
£ national ’ or ‘ general ’ strike within the industry
or occupational group easy to accomplish. Railway-
men and Miners in this country seem to regard the
national strike as their most powerful weapon.

In Germany, on the other hand, the General Strike

i8o

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

has found practically no supporters. The theoretical
General Strike that is to revolutionise society has
been received there even more coldly than in England ;
and even the national strike of a single industry or
occupation is directly contrary to the German practice.
The policy of the German Unions is, on the whole,
peaceful ; they prefer getting their advantages by
means of conciliation to fighting for them ; and,
while their declared policy is to reject national agree¬
ments extending over the whole country, they en¬
courage the conclusion of district agreements. This
is, of course, very much easier for them because there
is less risk of one ‘ craft ’ being bound by an agree¬
ment when it wishes to act with another within one
great Union ; the broad basis makes possible regional
and local agreements covering a whole industry or
group of occupations. The effect of this normal
method of conciliation is to make the district the
natural unit of negotiation, and therefore the area
over which disputes most easily arise. We have
seen that the first reference in case of a dispute is
to the District Council, and indeed, in all things, the
district is the centre of action. Strikes, too, conse¬
quently extend only over a single district, and the
national strike is almost unknown. It is from the
employers, rather than from the workers, that attempts
to extend the area of disputes habitually come.

Essential to this policy of the German Unions is
the strong central control of funds, which is a feature
of the Social-Democratic Unions. All the normal
levies are paid to the Central office, which administers
benefits and controls strike-funds. The branches
have only the power, which they exercise to a con¬
siderable extent, to make supplementary levies for
their own purposes. When a strike breaks out in

LABOUR IN GERMANY

181

one district, there is at once behind it the whole
financial force of all the districts combined in the
National Union, which, over a restricted area, can
meet the employers on equal terms. A national
strike, in these circumstances, is regarded as a calamity
threatening the Union with severe financial loss. It
is held to be far better to support the district in which
a strike has been sanctioned with the whole force of
the Union than to fight at once over the whole area
of the industry or group of occupations, and so enable
the employer to resist successfully until the Union
funds are exhausted. Such a policy, of course, neces¬
sitates strong central control of strikes ; sporadic
strikes on the unsupported initiative of a single district
are not allowed ; but, when once the district has
got the backing of the central Executive Committee
of the Union, the whole force of the organised industry
is behind it, and, if its demands are reasonable, the
employer is unlikely to be able to resist them. No
doubt this policy of centralisation can be, and in
some cases is, carried too far ; but it is an integral
part of German industrial policy, and cannot be
separated from the other leading features of which
we have already spoken.

On the whole, then, we may learn from German
Trade Unionism a good deal to hope for, and some
things to fear. There can be no doubt at all that
its organisation is altogether very efficient, and the
practical advantages it secures considerable. It is
indeed essentially reformist and ameliorative rather
than revolutionary and catastrophic. It leaves the
Social Revolution to the Socialist Party and is content
to build up the working-class of Germany into a
strong class-conscious organisation, which, even if it
does not introduce the bitterness of the class-war into

182

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

its industrial tactics, passes over continually, with
an enlarged conception of its meaning, into the
ranks of the Social-Democratic Party. The inevitable
result of having a reformist Labour Party is the
uprising of a revolutionary Trade Union movement ;
the presence of a more or less revolutionary Socialist
Party in Germany does much to keep the Trade
Union movement reformist. But its moderation is
far less that of stagnation than its enemies would
have us believe ; it is keenly alive to the limited
problems it consents to confront, and, in its own
sphere, it has shown itself very difficult to defeat
and still harder to deceive. In this sense, the best
rebels and revolutionaries have a full right to be
reformists.

In the end, everything depends on the rank and
file. The German Trade Unions can without danger
be ameliorative rather than revolutionary largely
because their members are to a great extent conscious
of broad issues behind Trade Unionism in a manner
that is quite beyond the range of the rank and file in
England. The German Trade Unionist is strong
enough to control strong officials ; our officials are
no sooner allowed to become strong than they make
themselves autocrats. We must therefore be chary
of regarding all the good points of the German
organisation as readily transferable to England. Our
problem is different, because our rank and file are
not the same.

The German view of the general strike is, however,
of sufficient importance to deserve further discussion.
It is worth while for a moment to set beside it the
experience of yet another foreign Labour movement.
We all remember the disastrous failure of the Swedish
General Strike of 1909 ; but at the time, it was almost

LABOUR IN SWEDEN

183

impossible to understand any of the deeper issues
involved in that conflict. The Swedish Labour move¬
ment is practically unknown in the country, and
without a knowledge of its history, it is impossible
to understand the situation which faced the Swedish
workers at that time.

The chief importance of the Swedish Labour move¬
ment is that there, on the small scale of Swedish
industry, many of the problems that face Trade
Unionism in other countries have reached the stage
of actual experiment. A country which employs
altogether only about 400,000 persons in industry
may seem at first sight too unimportant to deserve
attention : its importance arises from the fact that
well over 200,000 persons, or 50 per cent, of the whole,
are organised in real Unions. Industrial organisation
began about 1880, in the form of local Unions at
Scanie, founded under the influence of German and
Danish Social-Democracy. At first the development
was slow, but as the rigid pattern of German Unionism
was adapted to Swedish conditions, the rate of
advance gradually increased. The first local craft
Unions w^ere easily beaten by temporary combinations
of masters. From 1886 national ‘ craft ’ Federations
began to spring up.

From the first, there was a close alliance between
the Socialist Party and the Unions, and there can
be no doubt that, in the words of the Government
Report,1 “ this intimate union favoured — at least at
the outset — the development of both ”. It is, however,
becoming harder to maintain as the organisation
progresses, and it is not improbable that the two
bodies will ultimately become independent.

1 Les Lock-out et la GrSve Generate en Suede en 1909 (Stock¬
holm, 1912).

184

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

In spite of the growth of the Unions from 1886
onwards, they still met mainly with reverses at the
hands of the masters. As the Report says, “ the
greater part of the Federations being strictly specialised
according to the particular profession of the workers,
and not according to the industry or general class
of production of the places in which they worked,
it necessarily happened that under the same master
there were workers belonging to different Federations.
Where negotiations, agreements, or disputes occurred
between the master and a special group, the other
groups could have nothing to do with them, although
every modification in the conditions of work of one
group necessarily reacted more or less directly on
those of others. For these reasons, as well as for
the uniform defence of their common interests against
the masters, it soon became necessary to form a general
organisation, including the different Federations.”
Accordingly, after several abortive efforts, the Sveriges
Land sor ganisation came into being in 1898. In
April 1899 General Confederation had 27,000

members. Its growth from 1900 to 1909 was con¬
tinuous and rapid. At- the end of 1900 it already had
44,000 members ; and in 1909 it included 27 Federa¬
tions with 162,000 members, nearly all engaged in
industry and land transport.1 Outside the General
Confederation, but in close co-operation with it, were
25,000 Raihvaymen and about 6000 members of the
Typographical Federation. All these Unions are
affiliated to the Socialist Party. There were various
minor Unions of a non-political character ; but these
are unimportant, and play no independent part in
the events of 1909.

1 The Agricultural Federation had only 7000 members, and
these were mainly engaged in forest work.

LABOUR IN SWEDEN 185

In 1898, when the General Confederation came
into being, the masters were practically unorganised.
Consequently, the period was marked by a long
series of successful strikes. Between .1895 and 1902,
out of 490 strikes, the men won in 240, the masters
only in 63, and there were 184 compromises, mostly
rather in the men's favour. Wages rose, hours fell,
contracts had to be kept faithfully by the masters,
and priority of work for Unionists was often secured.
The new organisation seemed to be justifying its
existence most manfully. Then, in 1902, the Socialist
Party called a general strike to demand universal
suffrage. This at last roused the masters to organise.
Professional Federations of employers were formed,
and these were linked up into national organisations.
The Syndicate of Swedish Employers, which, one or
two trades apart, includes almost all the masters in
‘ great industry ’, covered 101 masters employing
29,000 men in 1903, and 1423 masters employing
160,000 men in 1909. Tts professed objects were
“ to facilitate understanding between employers, to
encourage the foundation of professional and local
(masters’) federations, to help these and individual
employers to settle labour disputes, and to indemnify
employers for losses occasioned by strikes and lock¬
outs.” For this purpose, it has built up enormous
funds out of which indemnities are paid, and has
grown in its organisation continually more centralised
and powerful. Beginning as a sort of employers’
insurance company, it has gradually extended its
operations, till now it is the chief force to be reckoned
with in labour disputes. The Syndicate of Employers
and the General Confederation tend more and more
to meet as the representatives of the two conflicting
parties in all great disputes. In the Syndicate of

i86

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

Employers there are 27 Federations, corresponding
to the 27 in the Confederation.

In addition to the Syndicate of Swedish Employers,
the masters formed in 1902, on the basis of an older
organisation, the Syndicate of Swedish Workshops,
which covers mainly engineering, shipbuilding, coach¬
building and the electrical industry. In 1908 it
included 162 masters employing 25,000 men. In
1905 it obtained a national agreement covering the
whole country ; this was renewed in 1908, and is
still in force. It has established conciliation boards,
and disputes in its province are as a rule arranged
without strikes.

Thirdly, the Central Employers’ Federation, founded
in 1903, grouped in 1909 about 2000 masters employing
about 40,000 men in the building and allied trades.
There are also independent employers’ associations
in certain industries, the most important being those
covering the Railways, the Printing industry, and
agriculture.

By far the most important, however, of all the
organisations is the Syndicate of Swedish Employers,
of which we shall in future speak. The others attain
to national importance only when, as in 1909, they
are working in co-operation with it. The situation
before the employers in 1903 was this. The Trade
Unions, by organising on a large scale, had easily
succeeded in putting pressure on the isolated masters
who resisted their demands. The condition of the
workers had greatly improved, and the masters saw
no possibility of resistance on the old lines. By
means of the new central organisations they saw
that they would be able to meet the Confederation on
an equal footing. The old policy of the federated
Trade Unions had been to secure local agreements

LABOUR IN SWEDEN 187

on every possible occasion. These local agreements
they had been strong enough to enforce, and the
fairly frequent revisions had gone for the most part
in their favour. About 1905 the Syndicate of
Employers was already strong enough to move. It
aimed at replacing local agreements by national
agreements covering the whole of an industry. By
this means they were enabled to unite their whole
forces against the Confederation. The early agree¬
ments contained, at the instance of the masters,
clauses forbidding any stoppage during their currency,
and set up machinery for dealing with disputes that
might arise ; but when the employers had reached
solidarity, they found this no longer suit them.
Though they supported one another during strikes,
and indemnified one another for losses incurred,
they found that the workers also did this, and that
the strikers could be maintained indefinitely on the
wages of those at work. They therefore accepted
amendments making the sympathetic strike and lock¬
out possible, and aimed, as far as possible, at making
every dispute national, and every strike general. To
every demand of a particular class of workers, they
replied with the threat of a general lock-out, and so
well were they organised that the Confederation dared
not force such an event. Agreements became national
instead of local, and every dispute became at once
a trial of strength between the two great central
organisations.

This is what happened in the general strike of 1909.
Already in 1906 the employers, conscious of their
strength, had used their whole force against the Con¬
federation and won merely by the threat of action.
They had demanded that there should be no clause
in any agreement forbidding the employment of non-

1 88

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

Unionists, and, as every employer in the Syndicate
had to get his agreement ratified by it, this meant a
general abandonment of the campaign against non-
Unionists. The Confederation tried to show fight,
but dared not face a struggle, and finally accepted
the compromise that there should be no discrimina¬
tion against Trade Unionists. Then a dispute arose
in the transport industry ; again the Syndicate
threatened a lock-out, and again the Confederation
gave way. In 1908 came a trade depression ; and
reductions in wages were generally demanded by the
masters. The Confederation knew that it was not
in a position to fight, and that the moment was very
favourable to the masters. It would have given way ;
but at this point it found its action forced by the
workers themselves. In the few years since 1902 the
Syndicate had become a highly centralised body, with
a uniform policy and under uniform control. It could
rely on being followed by the employers it included,
and further controlled the policy of the other organisa¬
tions of masters. The Confederation, on the other
hand, was a loose, federal organisation ; the Unions
at the base had indeed been forced to surrender some
of their powers to the Federations and to the Con¬
federation itself ; but, although normally the Con¬
federation could claim to represent the organised
workers, it had no power to control their actions.
Worse still, by its constitution it was responsible
for the support of any strike that might be declared
by one of the constituent Unions, even when it had re¬
fused its sanction. The Confederation, therefore, found
itself powerless to resist the resentment which followed
the threats of reductions in wages. It became plain
that, whatever attitude it chose to adopt, it was in for
a fight, and, that being so, its best chance lay in declar-

LABOUR IN SWEDEN 189

mg war instantly. Out of two or three small disputes
arose the general strike of 1909. The Confederation
went into the dispute knowing that it was bound to
be defeated, and the strike was lost. The masters
had beaten the workers at their own game of Trade
Unionism.

We have seen with what astonishing rapidity the
Swedish employers, as soon as they became conscious
that they were face to face with the united forces of
Labour, were able to organise themselves into bodies
possessing far greater coherence and power of concerted
action than the older Confederation of Labour had
been able to approach. It is far easier for masters
than for slaves to organise ; the Trade Unionism of
the workers has been won in the past by infinite labour
and in the teeth of infinite difficulties. The masters,
when they choose to organise, will find themselves
confronted by no such terrors ; as soon as organisation
suits their purposes, they can accomplish it rapidly,
painlessly and thoroughly. The lesson we may learn
from the Swedish Labour movement is that it is of
no manner of use for the workers to rely permanently
on the mere size of their organisations : at that
game they will be beaten by the employer, whenever
he chooses to exert himself. The master-class is, by
its nature, capable of far greater cohesion and far
prompter joint action than working-class bodies seem
likely to attain. In the contest of organisation, the
workers seem certain to be outwitted by their more
subtle opponents. Plutocracy will beat democracy,
as long as the democrats leave the plutocrats the
choice of weapons.

On the other hand, it seems difficult for democracy
to get the chance of using its own weapon. For if the
great strike must in the end be beaten by the great

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

190

lock-out, it is equally certain that, in face of a capitalist
class organised on the grand scale, the sporadic strike
and the small organisation are equally helpless. Here
again the case of Sweden shows what to expect. The
workers were the first to organise ; but they aimed,
not at putting direct pressure on the whole employing
class to grant definite and uniform terms, but at exercis¬
ing sporadic pressure in every individual case upon
the isolated capitalist. Labour’s game was to get as
much as possible out of the individual master, and not
to come to a general agreement which must to some
extent be based on the resources of the weaker capi¬
talists. The masters, on the other hand, were no
sooner organised than they demanded this very thing :
their interests were best suited by national agreements
covering the whole of an industry. Nay more, they
soon found that it paid them to use, at every point,
the threat of a general lock-out, even at the cost of a
general strike. The workers then seemed to be alto¬
gether beaten ; the general strike would fail because
of the superior resources at the back of the employers,
and the sectional or local strike merely brought on a
general lock-out. This was the more disastrous because
the Confederation of Labour, without controlling the
acts of its constituent Unions and Federations, was
financially responsible for their mistakes. Such a
position would be intolerable anywhere : where the
workers are confronted with a centralised organisation
of masters, they must either surrender some measure
of control over their acts to the central organisation
of Labour, or else they must stand alone, and look for
no financial assistance from headquarters. If they do
the latter, the master will be fully insured against
damage by his organisation, and they are bound to be
defeated.

LESSONS FROM ABROAD

igi

The central organisation must therefore inevitably
take on new powers and functions as the struggle
between Capital and Labour becomes more centralised.
But if, as we have argued, the general strike is equally
easily defeated by a class of well-organised masters,
of what use is this centralisation ? It is here that
the example of Germany is again valuable. Where a
general strike will fail for lack of funds, a local strike
well supported by the wages of those at work may
succeed ; but in order that such successes shall be
permanent, strikes must require the sanction of the
central body. It is still, of course, quite possible for
the masters to retaliate with the general lock-out ; but,
in the first place, this in itself prejudices their case in
the eyes of the public, and, in the second, they may
not always be ready to do so. The Swedish General
Strike followed upon the beginning of a trade depres¬
sion ; at such a time, a general lock-out is most likely
to suit the master-class. But it is just at such times,
when reductions are threatened, that sporadic strikes
are sure to break out, unless the central authority
has the power to control them. The local strike at
the beginning of a boom will seldom be answered
by a general lock-out, just because each individual
master wants to make hay while the sun shines. A
local strike at such a moment may be the best method
of breaking up the solidarity of the master-class, and
obtaining the concessions demanded one by one, in
locality after locality. But, for the successful pursuit
of such tactics, a great deal of centralisation is neces¬
sary, and to centralisation there is, at the present time,
a great and growing opposition among those of the
rank and file who, because they are rebels, really matter.

The fact that the leaders of Trade Unionism in
England have, for the most part, singularly thick

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

192

heads is naturally responsible for this attitude. Men
do not want to entrust their liberty of action to those
by whom they have no confidence of its being safe¬
guarded. There is abroad a legitimate spirit of resent¬
ment at the inaction and stupidity of many of the
leaders, and, until the leaders have shown themselves
more worthy of receiving authority, it is unlikely that
the people will consent to confer any more on them.
Here, however, we are dealing in generalisations ; we
are now to think, not of the personality of the leaders
of English Trade Unionism, but of the general lessons
about Trade Union policy we can get from abroad.
And, personalities apart, everything points to the con¬
clusion that, in the great industries at least, the only
kind of strike that has much chance of success is the
strike that is backed by the whole industry, and per¬
haps by the whole Trade Union movement. And,
if local strikes are to be successful, they must be
under firm central control. The local organisation
cannot claim to draw on central funds without coming
under central control, and without central funds the
local unit will, in the end, when capital is fully organ¬
ised, be wholly impotent.

When we come to deal more at length with the
strike policy that is possible and' desirable for this
country, we shall doubtless have many reservations
and modifications to make in respect of these con¬
clusions. In particular, we shall have to make an
exception in the case of small strikes of underpaid
workers. At present, the attempt is only to lay
down the general lines, and to inquire what, in the
most general terms, is the secret of German success
and of Swedish failure in Trade Unionism. It is,
of course, true that the situation in Sweden has been
profoundly modified by the smallness of the country,

•THE GENERAL STRIKE

193

as well as by the comparative insignificance of its
industry. It has been far easier there for both workers
and masters, once a start was made, to organise into
opposing compact central bodies. What is contended
is that Sweden presents in miniature the inevitable
future of industry in greater countries. There are,
of course, infinitely more difficulties in the way of
absolute solidarity in countries where industry is more
complicated. At present, we in England have not
reached the stage of complete solidarity even of
the masters in each industry by itself ; but towards
this we are visibly and increasingly tending.

Whatever the degree of industrial concentration,
the comparative desirability of national and local
strikes varies widely with the industry concerned, and
it is dangerous to generalise in favour of either. What
the example of Sweden teaches is not so much the
failure of either, as the impossibility of combining
centralised finance with absolute local autonomy in
the declaration of strikes. This at once gives the
employer the chance to suck the life-blood from an
organisation by provoking a local dispute, and causing
the Union to spend its funds, and then to follow this
manoeuvre up by declaring a national lock-out. As
we shall see, the experience of the South Wales Miners
goes to prove this. The case for and against local
autonomy will be examined in a later chapter, when
we come to speak of Trade Union government. What¬
ever the uses of the local strike, the national strike
is increasingly the weapon for great national
issues.

It may seem that the General Strike, of which we
have recently been hearing so much, has been far too
brusquely and summarily dismissed. It is such a
'vague name that, if we are to understand it, we must

13

194

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

now examine it in some detail. It is possible to
divide the phenomena, actual or conceivable, which
are called ‘ general strikes ’ in many ways. We will
attempt a rough classification, and deal with each
form in turn. According to their aims, we may
divide general strikes into four classes, political, anti¬
militaristic, economic and social. According to the
enemy at which they are directed, we might divide
them into three classes, strikes against the Govern¬
ment, strikes against employers, and strikes against
Society. Neither classification is satisfactory ; but
the first will serve. All these forms have their ad¬
vocates, and two of them at least have been tried.

I. A political general strike aims at a specific reform,
which it calls on the legislature to pass into law. It
uses the industrial weapon for a specific political
object, and therefore comes into conflict with the
General Strike of the Syndicalists, and with syndicalist
theory generally. It accepts the State, and acknow¬
ledges that the worker is concerned with politics.
The object of this form of strike has, as a rule, been
the extension of the suffrage ; but there is no reason
why it should not be applied to any political object.
In some cases, it may approach in character either
the * economic ’ or the ‘ social ’ form. When M. Sorel
says that “ useful laws may be won by direct action ”,
he is at least departing from the extreme doctrine that
the State is nothing to the workers. A strike for or
against a law may have either a political or an economic
object, and it is doubtful whether strikes against the
Government for an economic end should be called
‘ political ’ or ‘ economic ’. To which class, for in¬
stance, would a strike against the Insurance Act belong?

For our present purpose, it is best to confine our¬
selves to the chief class of ‘ political ’ general strikes,-

THE GENERAL STRIKE

195

those in favour of franchise reform, generally of
universal suffrage. Very recently, we have had an
instance of such a strike in Belgium, where, in addition,
there had been two earlier attempts. We have
already mentioned the ‘ political ’ general strike of
1902 in Sweden. The Belgian strike of 1893 was the
first, and though it was by no means complete or
well organised, it succeeded in some measure, because
of the fear it struck to the heart of the middle classes.
It secured not ‘ one man, one vote ’, but universal
suffrage combined with plural voting. The second
strike, in 1902, though more general and better
organised, failed. The country was no longer
frightened of it ; its terrors were known, and it was
seen not to be irresistible. The third strike, in 1913,
though it afforded a fine display of solidarity, made it
clear from the attitude the Government took up that
the general strike has lost its terrors. There was
never any risk that it would develop into a revolution ;
it was an organised and powerful protest, and no
more. The weight it carried was merely that of an
exceptionally great demonstration. The force behind
it was the force of public opinion, and not the threat
of revolution.

The Swedish strike of 1902 professedly accepted these
limitations. It was fixed definitely for the days
during which Parliament was to debate the question
of electoral reform, and was never intended to go on
beyond that period. It was merely an organised
protest, successful in that it secured the withdrawal
of the Government Bill.

These examples seem to prove that the political
general strike can be used with effect as a means of
demonstrating on a large scale, but that it cannot
hope to conquer by mere force. The strikers can

196

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

succeed only by influencing public opinion, and so
acting on the fears of the Government. If the Govern¬
ment is sure of its electorate, there is no chance of the
strikers outlasting it Nor, in the present state of
Labour, is there more chance of the political strike
developing into a revolution. Naturally, this kind
of strike has arisen where, as in Belgium and Sweden,
the Trade Unions act in close co-operation with the
Socialist Party. This has certainly tended to make
them more pacific than they would otherwise have
been ; but in any case there is little prospect of a
strike directed to the gaining of a definite reform,
and necessarily limited in duration, developing into
a real manifestation of the revolutionary spirit. It
is as an organised demonstration that the political
general strike is acceptable ; it is a weapon of some
importance where the Government tries to force
through a bad and unpopular Bill. It might well
have been used in the case of the Insurance Act.

II. Second comes the anti-militaristic general strike.
Of this there is no actual case, though France has
several times come near furnishing one. Its most
popular form is that generally preached by Mr. Keir
Hardie, the ‘ strike against war ’. When two powers
declare war on each other, it is urged, let the workers
of both countries go on strike, and refuse to play the
capitalists’ game. This looks very well on paper,
and it is possible, in times of peace, to get up, among
a limited class, quite a lot of enthusiasm for such a
proposal. But there is nothing so certain as that, at
the first breath of a war-scare, all the peaceable
professions of the workers will be forgotten, and
jingoism will sweep like a scourge over the country.
However true it may be that the interests of the
working-class are in all countries identical, there is

THE GENERAL STRIKE

197

assuredly no working-class educated enough or sober
enough to recognise the identity in the midst of a war-
scare. A strike against war on a large scale is, in this
country at any rate, absolutely inconceivable ; in
Germany the attempt is more possible, but its failure
is equally sure. The strike against war may be ruled
out at once as a sheer impossibility.1

III. The economic general strike is devoted to
gaining some definite concession from the employer,
and differs from the ordinary partial strike only in
extent. The classical instance is, of course, the
Swedish strike of 1909, with which we have already
dealt. The Dutch General Strike of 1903, which was
directed against the State, was economic in aim, as
it was declared to resist legislation against strikes in
public services. It was an utter failure ; but too much
importance should not be attached to it, as want
of organisation was the chief cause of its ill-success :
it was general in little more than name.

The name ‘ general strike ’ is sometimes used
loosely to cover national strikes in a particular in¬
dustry. We have seen, in speaking of Sweden, to
what extent the two cases are similar ; but the con¬
fusion of them, in a discussion of the general strike
as a whole, merely leads to difficulties. It is quite
possible to approve of the national industrial strike,
a railway or a coal strike for instance, without ex¬
pressing approval of . the economic general strike,
properly so called.

It is clear from the beginning that such a strike
demands a degree of solidarity among the workers
which they are far from having attained, or else an
extraordinarily broad issue. In Sweden, the element
of solidarity was present, the broad issue mainly
lacking. In this country, it is clear that, for a long

1 Written in 1913.

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

198

time at any rate, we shall not have a Labour move¬
ment prepared to call a general strike in support of
any one section, nor would such a strike as a rule
make it any the easier for the section to gain its
demands. The case only arises, the general strike only
becomes possible on such issues, when both workers
and employers are organised into single confederacies
capable, in a high degree, of concerted action. When
there is a General Federation of Trade Unions includ¬
ing nearly all the working-class organisations, con¬
fronted by a body representing nearly all employers,
it will be time to face the possibility of the smallest
dispute becoming general, as a quarrel about a single
employee may now lead to a national strike of railway-
men, or a national lock-out of textile workers.

The second class of economic general strikes is
hard to distinguish from some kinds of ‘ political ’
strikes. An issue sufficiently broad to bring out all
the workers, even if it is economic rather than political,
will inevitably involve the State. If a general strike
in favour of an eight hours’ day were to be declared,
it is quite certain that, in case of its success, it would
be necessary for the State to step in and legalise what
the workers had won. The same would be the case
with general strikes against non-unionists, against a
Government Bill regulating Trade Unions, in favour
of a Minimum Wage, or the like. In every case the
State, as well as the employer, would be more or
less directly involved, and the strike would be political
as well as economic.

That such general strikes are a possibility it would
be folly to deny ; that they would have, at present,
much chance of success appears to be very improb¬
able. It is hardly to be inferred from the pheno¬
mena of the Labour unrest that the feeling of solidarity

THE GENERAL STRIKE

199

is strong enough to bring about action on so great a
scale even on the broadest and most universal issues.
But, if the necessary solidarity could be attained,
there seems no reason why such strikes should not
have their use. It is necessary here again to dis¬
tinguish between their possible uses. Some ad¬
vocates hold that direct action would itself win the
eight hours’ day, and that the State Bill legalising
it would come as a mere ratification of what the
workers had won. This conclusion is optimistic, and
seems hardly justified. It is perfectly true that
nobody could make the worker labour for more than
eight hours if he did not want to ; but it is equally
clear that there would be a good many ‘ blacklegs ’
ready to work a long time, and, further, that no power
on earth could prevent the employers from docking
wages to meet the loss of time. But the eight hours’
day is no use if wages go down ; the general strike
on behalf of it would merely commit the Trade Unions
to a far longer and fiercer battle of hopeless resistance
to a general fall in wages.

The economic general strike, therefore, though it
may in certain extreme cases be justifiable, is not a
weapon for everyday use, and not one that should
be carelessly applied. It would be too much to say
that it is always a mistake ; but we can at least
say that in no great country has it, at present, the
slightest chance of succeeding. For the distant future,
it is easier to find inspiration, if we like ' vital lies ’
and ‘ social myths ’, and similar tomfoolery, in the social
general strike of the Syndicalists and the Anarchists.

IV. The social general strike aims at the complete
overthrow of capitalist society, and the substitution
of a new order. We have already had something to
say of it in dealing with the doctrines of French

200

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

Syndicalism, in the rhetorical expositions of MM. Sorel,
Berth and Lagardelle. Here we have to do with only
a part of what was there included under the head of
the General Strike. We are no longer concerned
with the “ general strike that is realised daily”, with
the revolutionary aspiration that should be present
in every movement of the working-class ; we are con¬
cerned solely with the historical dogma of the General
Strike that is some day to burst out and overwhelm
capitalist society. For it is certain that, although
some writers regard the general strike merely as a
' vital lie ’, a necessary falsehood designed to instil
courage into the workers, there are others who take
the idea seriously, and in all honesty propose to con¬
summate the overthrow of bourgeois society by
means of the social general strike — no longer with
folded arms, with the peace that characterised the
political strike, but, as the French say, perlee, and
scorning no weapons, however savage and lawless,
that may contribute to the destruction of Capitalism.

It is therefore necessary to take the idea of the social
general strike seriously, and to escape from the region
of ‘ myth ' into that of prophecy. The General Strike
is b}^ no means a new idea ; its antiquity has been
sufficiently insisted on by every writer who has ad¬
vocated its use. For us, it is most important to
remark that it found its way into Syndicalism straight
out of Anarchist Communism. William Morris made
it the method of the social revolution in News from
Nowhere, and it has long been a leading feature of
Communist propaganda. MM. Pataud and Pouget,
in their Syndicalist Utopia Comment nous ferons la
Revolution,1 by no means hit on a new idea in ushering

1 Syndicalism and the Co-operative Commonwealth , Oxford,
I9I3-

THE GENERAL STRIKE

201

in their ‘ great change ’ by means of a half-conscious
strike gradually extending over the whole working-
class. The idea is old, and has always exercised a
powerful fascination over young rebels of every
school. M. Briand, the most notorious strike-breaker
of all French Premiers, was in earlier days a notable
advocate of it, and it has always been over the idealist
and the middle-class Socialist that it has cast the
strongest spell.

The idea is presented in two different forms. Either
the General Strike is to come like a thief in the night,
arising out of some small and unimportant dispute
and spreading like wild-fire through the whole country,
or it is to be a carefully calculated outbreak, arranged
in advance and prepared for by all the Trade Unions
and Co-operative Societies in the country. In dis¬
cussing these two forms, we must remember that
the object of the strike is the entire overthrow of
the present social system, and the substibition for it
of a new society, based wholly on production. The
common answer to advocates of such a strike is to
say that if the workers were educated up to such a
point as to be capable of declaring it, it would be
already unnecessary, and they would find it far easier
to substitute the new for the old order by more peace¬
ful methods, industrial and political. If we regard
the General Strike as taking the second form, as
carefully prepared in advance, this argument seems
to have force. Syndicalists generally answer it by
repudiating the preconceived strike, and arguing that
the General Strike will come on us when we least
expect it, by a sudden uprising of the great mass of
the workers and a sudden realisation of their position
in the world of Capitalism. The answer to this is
that the workers will do nothing of the sort. It is

202

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

possible that such an upheaval may occur in France
or Italy or Spain, where it will certainly fail if it does
occur ; but in England or Germany or America it is
quite inconceivable. The English worker is far too
stably organised, and far too conservative in nature,
to take any such leap in the dark ; for him, as for
the German, the General Strike is an idea that is
at once grotesquely unpractical and even without
instinctive appeal. Even in France, it is clear that
the leaders are well aware that the Social General
Strike and the ‘ Great Change ’ are only a ‘ myth ’ ;
but in countries that are used to revolutions such an
idea has its appeal, and serves as a good propagandist
notion. Its importation into England is a mistaken
policy. We want more revolutionary feeling in this
country ; but we must make our own revolutionary
conceptions, and not import the less successful of
French ideas. For this country, the Social General
Strike is irrelevant. Mr. Tom Mann may preach it ;
but he will not get anybody to take it seriously.
And, to judge from his recent book,1 he has realised
this and practically dropped it.

The nearest approach to a Social General Strike that
has actually occurred is the general and instinctive
movement in Italy in 1904. The Government had
been using troops against strikers, and certain workers
had been killed. In answer, there broke out, in a
hundred towns all over Italy, an instinctive strike
which lasted for five days. The revolutionaries claim
that it was victorious ; the reformists, headed by
Turati, assert that the sole effect was to strengthen
the hands of the reactionaries. In any case, the
movement had only the value of an instinctive protest,
and is quite without further significance. The success
1 From Single Tax to Syndicalism.

THE GENERAL STRIKE

203

of such a strike would not prove at all the possibility
of success in a great outbreak aiming at the overthrow
of Society generally.

Spanish General Strikes are merely revolutions on
a small scale, and are not really economic in character.
They break out whenever revolutionary feeling runs
high, and are purely political movements which do
not concern us here.

On the whole the social General Strike may be
dismissed as a rather barren contribution of the
theorists to economic propaganda. It is Anarchist
in its origin, and has throughout the unpractical and
Utopian character of Anarchistic ideas in a very
marked degree. To that small minority which is
always dreaming of the great to-morrow that never
comes it will continue to appeal as a dramatic repre¬
sentation of the recovery by the disinherited of the
birthright they have lost ; in revolutionary countries,
it may even, in combination with political causes
and forces, play a part in actual revolutions ; but
in countries like England, painfully afflicted with the
art of compromise and ‘ muddling through ideas
gain more by being turned into ‘ business propositions '
than by being artistically and dramatically expressed.
The idea behind the General Strike is sound enough,
and in a romance like News from Nowhere there is
no reason for obj ecting to its use ; but the main
business of the friends of Labour to-day is to convince
the workers, and that, in Great Britain at any rate,
they will never succeed in doing by means of such
imaginative conceptions as the General Strike. For
the unimaginative, mysticism is merely mystification ;
the General Strike is the General Strike and nothing
more. It does not, for the average worker, symbolise
the class-struggle and the final triumph of democracy ;

204

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

it is merely ‘ a fool’s idea of running a revolution
If it is to be received in that spirit, the less we hear
of it on this side of the Channel the better England
will never breed the wilder revolutionaries in any
numbers, just as it has never bred Anarchists. It
may import them ; but, on the whole, imported ideas
do not pay. If we are to have a gospel of revolt, we
must create it for ourselves, out of the materials
in our hands. Neither pure Marxism nor pure
Syndicalism will suit us ; and it is as a sign that we
are beginning to struggle for ideas of our own that
the recent intellectual unrest is hopeful. But the
finding of a new theory is a long business ; and revolu¬
tionaries are too often half-educated.

CHAPTER VII

TRADE UNION STRUCTURE— INDUSTRIAL
UNIONISM AND AMALGAMATION

From these long preliminary studies, we return at
last to face the problem as it exists in our own country.
Some of the more interesting of the world’s Labour
movements have passed before us in rapid review,
and the attempt has been made to single out in each
the features which are likely to be most helpful for the
strengthening of our own. But perhaps at this stage
we may still be met with a douche of cold water.
The Trade Union movement, we shall be told, knows
its own business best : through its long and troublous
history it has continually been finding out what is
good for it ; experience is the best teacher, and in
experience our Trade Unions are rich indeed. Trade
Unionists and, still more, Trade Union officials, know
best what is good for them ; it is no outsider’s business
to teach them what he cannot know, while they must
understand very well what is best. It is in the
conviction that this attitude is wrong, and that the
last word in all matters does not rest with the official
expert, that this book has been written.

The long continuous history of the Trade Union
movement in this country, while it is undoubtedly
a great element of strength, has its dangers also.
During the last few years, it has begun to dawn on

205

206

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

us that the Labour movement is no more immune
than any other from the official type of mind. One
of the most striking facts about our Unions is the
slight change which their methods have undergone
through long stretches of years. Union officials are
not, as a rule, persons of great original capacity ;
they are content to do their work efficiently in the
old way, without striking out new lines or attempt¬
ing to experiment till they are quite sure. They are
largely of the type that makes good head clerks, but
is incapable of the onerous tasks of management and
initiation. They generally possess administrative
ability ; but they very seldom even attempt to get
any general view of the problems they have to face.
Such men make good officials, when there is a strong
body of the rank and file to stir them up and tell them
what to do. When the rank and file is itself unen¬
lightened, they are not the sort of leaders to enable
a movement to adapt itself readily to changing
conditions.

If the leaders are dull and unimaginative, the fol¬
lowers are little better. The Trade Union movement,
after the great unrest of 1889-90, sank into a deep
slumber. Problems in which the rank and file had
then been keenly interested were forgotten, and most
of the leaders were only too glad to be allowed to let
them rest. Our Trade Unions, growing continually
in numbers, lost really more than they gained. The
community represented by Union membership grew
slacker ; the Union tended to become a mere benefit
society, and to forget that its sole raison d'etre was the
ceaseless war against Capitalism and exploitation. The
fighting spirit slumbered : as, in the Co-operative
Societies, dividends became of more account than
Co-operation, so, in the Trade Unions, benefits were

TRADE UNION STRUCTURE

20 7

more than the class-struggle. In a word. Trade
Unionism became respectable.

Respectability is the death of all working-class
movements. With the change in the public attitude
towards Trade Unionism came a change in the social
standing of its officials. They too became respectable,
and with their new position came their divorce from
the working-class point of view, the growing breach
between the official caste and the rank and file.
Divorced from manual labour, the leaders ceased to
understand the needs of the wage-earner, and with the
crowning camaraderie of the House of Commons died
the last semblance of the old unity. The Labour
leaders entered the governing classes, and Labour was
left, perplexed and unmanned, to find new leaders in
its own ranks, without any assurance that it would
not be merely making more recruits for the Liberal
party. The worker, given a little lead, climbs so
easily into the middle class, and, in the modern world,
origin and original sympathy are so easily forgotten.

No wonder, then, that our Labour movement has
suffered. Unfortunately, there seems no remedy.
The rank and file can at most only learn to keep more
control over their leaders, and to make it harder for
them to get out of touch. It is easy for them to do so
now just because the workers themselves have no
decided point of view, and are easily led away by the
first clap-trap of an election-agent. It is at least time
that all the forces of Labour in this country learnt to
forsake the old superstitions that our Trade Unionists
are class-conscious proletarians, that the Labour
Party is a Socialist Party, and that Trade Union
officials know best what is good for Trade Unionism.
The recent history of the Unions in this country is a
history of muddle and mismanagement ; there has been

208

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

no attempt to face actual problems in a statesmanlike
manner, still less to anticipate difficulties before they
arise. The officials have muddled through, and the
rank and file have let them do it almost without protest.
Meanwhile, Capital has been equipping itself to fight
Labour when it wakes, and in the preliminary rounds
that have been fought, the Unions, disorganised as ever,
have found themselves faced by an organised opposi¬
tion. We have seen, in the case of Sweden, to what
perfection capitalist organisation may be brought ;
but, apparently, our Unions refuse to heed the warning.
The strivings of a few restless spirits have made little
impression on the mass of Trade Unionists. The
apathy is still profound, the stupidity incredible.
Even those who see what is wrong have been so long
without leaders that they know not how to mend
matters. They are forced to make bricks without
straw, amid the contemptuous amusement of Labour
leaders who will not stir a finger to help in the struggle.

Trade Union affairs are naturally first of all the
affair of Trade Unionists. An outsider who dares to
discuss the matter is certain to be met with a good deal
of hostility, and to be told that such things are none of
his business. The answer to this objection must be
that Trade Unionism is far too important to be left
for Trade Unionists alone to control. Whether they
like it or not, Trade Unions are national institutions,
and every man who interests himself at all in the con¬
dition of the workers is bound to face and think out for
himself all the problems with which they are con¬
fronted. Largely against the will of their members,
the Unions are gradually becoming connected in many
different ways with the whole system of associations,
governmental and voluntary, which makes up the
modern State. Their private affairs have become

TRADE UNION STRUCTURE

209

matters of public interest, and as soon as it is even
suggested that their competence may extend beyond
the sphere of collective bargaining into other spheres
as yet undefined, their internal system comes to be
of direct interest to every politician and to every
revolutionary.

No doubt there are certain problems which are,
more intimately than others, the primary concern of
Trade Unionists themselves. These are problems
relating to the internal organisation, rather than to
the functions, of the Unions. When, however, it is
widely suggested that the Unions may themselves
furnish the instruments for the overthrow of Capital¬
ism, and that their adaptability to this end depends
directly upon the way in which they are organised,
even such internal problems become at once of general
interest, and have to be faced by every one. In this
chapter, we shall turn our attention to Trade Union
structure ; in the next, we shall deal with the internal
affairs of the Unions, and attempt, in the broadest out¬
line, to describe the chief problems now awaiting
solution in Trade Union government and control.

Until very recently, most people were ready to
accept Trade Union structure as something settled,
natural and unalterable. They knew that there were
a certain number of Unions, which occasionally organ¬
ised strikes, and the problem seemed to be merely one
of endurance on both sides. They were perhaps
vaguely aware of the existence of Federations, both of
masters and of men, in certain industries ; they had
heard of the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain, and
knew that the cotton industry had a peculiar system of
organisation which they connected vaguely with the
Brooklands Agreement. But they did not regard
Trade Union structure as a problem calling for discus-

14

210

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

sion or solution : it was supposed to be inevitable and
to follow naturally the divisions of occupation and the
needs of the particular industries concerned.

No doubt some Trade Unionists were aware all
along of problems to be faced. Disputes about
amalgamation of Unions in particular industries are
not new, and the Amalgamated Society of Engineers,
in particular, has always been a storm-centre. But
Trade Union officials— who naturally tend to uphold
the status quo — and even the rank and file of Trade
Unionists — had not till quite recently perceived that
there was a problem which, although it would have to
be solved differently in every particular case, could
still be faced generally and on a broad issue. To-day,
the question of Trade Union structure is the central
problem before the Labour movement.

It is important that we should emphasise at the
outset the extraordinary complication and lack of
uniformity which Union organisation now presents.
As we took the lead in time, and as the growth of our
Trade Unions was not inspired from any centre, but
was in essence local and voluntary, it was inevitable,
in the absence of any guiding principle of uniformity
such as the Rochdale system imposed on local Co¬
operative effort, that the forms taken by the new organ¬
isations should be conflicting and various. Moreover,
the Co-operative movement was able to secure a
natural uniformity because the problems its different
societies had to face were in all cases nearly identical ;
but the Trade Unions were faced with such a diversity
of complex situations that they could not possibly
have more than the broadest traits in common.
England then, largely because it was the first country
to develop Trade Unionism, as well as because it is
industrially still the most complicated, has evolved a

TRADE UNION STRUCTURE

211

Trade Union structure that is the merest chaos. It is in
England that the organisation of the Labour movement
on a ‘ class ’ basis presents the greatest difficulties and
dangers. Another country may perhaps almost solve
the question for itself by the talismanic phrase ‘ In¬
dustrial Unionism ’ ; but it is clear that such easy
solutions are not for us.

The movement known in this country as ‘ Industrial
Syndicalism ’ is a combination Of two streams of
influence : it comes half from France and half from
America. In essence, it is throughout far more
English than either French or American ; it has
taken over foreign names and ideas, and adapted
them to an English situation. As a result, it has been
often vague and indefinite ; it has devoted much of its
attention to the gentle art of reconciling contraries,
and it has ended by becoming not so much a dogma
as a point of view. Its practical policy has been
reduced almost to proposals for the amalgamation of
existing Trade Unions, seasoned with advocacy of
strikes and abuse of the Labour Party.

The movement towards what is vaguely called
‘ Industrial Unionism ’ is, as a rule, very imperfectly
understood. The old Industrial Unionists, who were
the English adherents of the Industrial Workers of
the World, called upon the working-classes to leave
the existing Unions, which they held to be corrupt
‘ craft ’ organisations fatal to working-class solidarity,
and to form entirely new Unions on an industrial
basis, linked up in a national branch of the Industrial
Workers of the World, and professedly international
and revolutionary in aim. Naturally enough, this
movement made little headway among the Trade
Unionists of this country ; they had, with enormous
pains, built up their organisations and set them on a

212

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

firm financial basis ; and now they were asked to
put all this behind them, to ‘ scrap ’ all the work of
the last century, and to begin afresh in a new way.
The first step towards practicable Industrial Unionism
was the abandonment of this attitude : and it was
not until the advocates of ‘ Revolutionary Unionism ’
accepted the situation and declared their readiness to
work through the existing Unions that their move¬
ment became important. As soon, however, as they
passed from academic * Industrial Unionism ’ to
practicable proposals for amalgamation of rival and
overlapping Unions, an entirely new phase set in.
Every one agreed that closer unity is essential to
effective industrial action ; but there were wide
differences as to method and object.

Broadly speaking, there are three possible methods
of organisation for the workers. The first is pure
‘ craft ’ Unionism, which unites in a single association
those workers who are engaged on a single industrial
process, or on processes so nearly akin that anyone
can do another’s work. This is the bond of association
in most of the smaller Trade Unions, as for instance
in the Ironfounders or the Bricklayers. The second
form is that which unites all the workers engaged
upon a larger group of kindred processes, still following
the lines of the type of work done. Under this system,
all Engineers (perhaps all Metal Workers) would be
in one Union, all Wood Workers in a second, all
Leather Workers in a third, and all underground
Miners in a fourth. This type of organisation we
shall in future call simply occupational Unionism.
There is, however, a third possibility. Organisation
may follow the lines, not of the work done, but of the
actual structure of industry. All workers working
at producing a particular kind of commodity may be

TRADE UNION STRUCTURE

213

organised in a single Union. This would place some
Metal Workers in the Miners’ Union, some in the
Railway Union, some in the Shipbuilding Union,
and some in almost every important industrial group.
Again, it would put some Carters in the Union of
Transport Workers and some in the Railway Union.
It would place some Carpenters and Joiners among
Shipbuilders and others in the Building Union.
The basis of organisation would be neither the craft to
which a man belonged nor the employer under whom
he worked, but the service on . which he was engaged.
This is Industrial Unionism properly so called.

When, therefore, ‘ Industrial Unionism ’ is contrasted
broadly with ' craft ’ Unionism, it is well to under¬
stand exactly what is meant. The use of the phrase
to cover ' occupational ’ or real ‘ industrial ’ Unionism
indifferently is productive of much confused thinking,
and, still worse, of much contradictory endeavour.
It will be our buisiness in this chapter to see how far
either form of organisation is applicable to the needs
of Trade Unionism in this country.

I. Advocates of ‘ craft ’ Unionism maintain that,
by associating only those persons whose interests are
throughout uniform, it secures at once the closest
possible unity and the most intelligent collective
bargaining. Having but a single interest, the ‘ craft ’
Union, we are told, is protected from dissension
within, and, perfectly understanding its own interest,
it is in the best possible position for getting good
terms from the employer. There is, in these argu¬
ments, an element of truth. Members of the Iron-
founders’ Union quote the terms they have secured as
a justification for remaining outside the Aamlgamated
Society of Engineers. A small Union of highly skilled
workers, exercising a practical monopoly of its craft,

214

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

has probably little or nothing to gain from association
with other crafts, as long as it remains on good terms
with the employers, and as long as a semi-skilled
class does not spring up capable of doing its work
at a pinch. There are undoubtedly craft interests
which require that the craft should not wholly merge
its individuality in any larger body ; it has separate
concerns which its members alone can understand,
and which it cannot leave to be settled by a general
vote of members of other crafts besides. A small
craft, unless care is taken to secure its representation
in a larger association, may easily be swamped, and
actually lose by association with others. The Amalga¬
mated Society of Engineers has never succeeded in
absorbing the smaller ‘ craft ’ Unions dealing with
Engineering just because it has made no provision for
the representation of crafts within the great association.
The German Metal Workers’ Union, far larger and
more inclusive, succeeds just because such representa¬
tion is secured. The argument for independent
‘ craft ’ Unionism rests, in fact, on the fallacy that
in the ‘ greater ’ Unionism the smaller ‘ crafts ’ must
necessarily lose their identity. If a system can be
devised to secure unity and preserve difference, the
main argument in favour of the small Union will
have disappeared.

So far, however, the case against ‘ craft ’ Unionism
has not been clearly stated. It pursues broadly two
lines of argument. First, the larger Union scores
financially. The example of the private Insurance
Companies is enough to prove that it pays to have as
many members as possible. In its friendly activities,
the Union that does a lot of business, i.e. has many
members, is, on the whole, in a better financial position
than the small Union, Again, the larger Union is, as

TRADE UNION STRUCTURE

215

a rule, in a better position for building up a strike
fund than any small Union can be. Of course, a small
skilled ' craft ’ Union that pursues peaceful methods
and has few strikes may actually lose in this respect
by association with other less peaceful ‘ crafts ’ ;
but, on the whole, here too, ‘ big ’ organisations pay
best. All these questions are, however, secondary.
The real point in which the ‘ greater ’ Unionism is
superior is in its better adaptation to the needs of
industrial warfare. It is becoming continually easier
for the employers to beat any craft Union that stands
alone. The separateness of crafts is being broken
down by the improvement of machinery, and it is
becoming more possible for the work of the skilled
to be done by the semi-skilled. A strike of a single
craft thus becomes less and less likely to succeed.
The skilled are forced to stand together, and to make
common cause with the unskilled. Craft Unionism is
out of date because the isolation of the craft is itself
becoming a thing of the past. The small Unions have
to act together, and, in order to do this at all, they
must at least federate.1 There are still cases in which
the separateness of a craft remains so sharp that, from
the point of view of pure self-interest, it is justified in
standing out of all larger associations ; but such cases
are already few, and their number is rapidly diminish¬
ing. The need for closer co-operation is almost
universally recognised, and friends of craft Unionism
are driven back upon their second line of defence.

II. Cannot all the co-operation that is necessary,
they ask, be secured by the Federation of Unions ?
Is actual Amalgamation necessary? Federation
enables all to act together, without robbing each
craft of its autonomy or its individuality. Instead of

1 Only complete amalgamation can make this co-operation
really effective.

2l6

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

being crushed and overwhelmed in a great association
of which it is only an insignificant part, the craft can
retain its freedom of action and judgment, and at the
same time receive the help of its fellows when it needs
it. This idyllic picture of the perfect Federation
is, unfortunately, far from the originals. The desire
to get everything and give nothing is the most pre¬
valent characteristic of federated Unions.

The independent craft Union of skilled workers
is almost always peaceful in character. It works by
means of conciliation and agreements. As long as
it is able to go on in absolute isolation, this method
has no obvious disadvantages ; but as soon as it
becomes necessary to co-operate with other Unions,
difficulties begin. Agreements have generally been
made by the different crafts for varying periods.
When, therefore, they desire to take common action,
some of them are always bound down by agreements
and cannot join in. At last, they may perhaps com¬
bine into a Federation, and attempt by this means to
secure better concerted action. This is the stage
which has already been reached in the more important
British industries.

Advocates of Federation, however, are not always
very careful to explain what they mean by it. They
point to all the masses of organisations which are
classified by the Board of Trade under that head, and
are at no pains to point out that the name means
very different things in different cases. The typical
example of Federation as opposed to Amalgamation is
generally supposed to be the Cotton Industry of
Lancashire ; but those who quote the instance usually
omit to point out even the elementary difference
between local and national Federation. In any in¬
dustry which is not purely localised in character, or

TRADE UNION STRUCTURE

217

producing for a purely local market, the object which
either Federation or Amalgamation aims at securing
is the cohesion of the whole of the workers in that
industry, on a national and not on a local basis.
There is no reason for supposing that this demand will
be met by local Federation, even if local Federation is
a good thing. Local Federation is entirely com¬
patible with national Amalgamation, as we shall see
later on.

What the supporters of Federation really mean
is that strong national ‘ craft ’ or ‘ sectional ’ Unions
should be built up and federated nationally. They
aim in fact at organisation of the type of the Engineer¬
ing and Shipbuilding Federation, The Iron and Steel
Trades Federation, or the Transport Workers’ Federa¬
tion. The difficulty here too is that Federation may
mean so many different things. It implies, as we
have seen, merely the retention of their individuality
by the Unions concerned, without specifying the
degree of power which is conceded to the body in
which they are united. It may therefore possess
almost any degree of strength or weakness, and mean
anything from a pious expression of sympathy and
brotherhood to the practical equivalent of a real
Amalgamation. In fact, Federations of almost every
degree of intensity exist : and it is never possible, with¬
out particular study of each case, to discover what the
mere fact of Federation implies. Some Federations
are merely political, some in practice concern them¬
selves almost solely with demarcation disputes ; others
are regarded by their promoters merely as steps to
Amalgamation, and yet others are the real centres
of industrial action. Their efficiency depends partly
on their constitution and powers, and partly on the
nature of the industry which they cover.

2l8

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

Apart from the perpetual problem of surfacemen
and mine engine-men, the Miners possess industrial
Unionism, as far as membership is concerned. The
Miners’ Federation of Great Britain consists, not of
local ‘ sectional ’ Unions, but of county or district
Industrial Unions. Sometimes the county unit is
itself in name a Federation, as in South Wales ; but
Federation in this case merely means a Union in which
the local lodges have preserved a good deal of power.
The question of organisation in the Mining Industry
is never one of ‘ section ’ against ‘ section,’ but always
of the balance of local and central control. It cannot
therefore be in any way compared with the problem
to be faced, for instance, by the Engineering Unions.

The Engineering and Shipbuilding Trades Federa¬
tion is in practice concerned largely with questions
of demarcation. It makes no pretence of being an
effective fighting force in trade disputes. It leaves
the support of members during strikes to the in¬
dividual Unions concerned, and the separate Unions,
and not the Federation, are the signatories to the
Shipyard and Engineering Agreements. Such a Feder¬
ation may do excellent work in setting tip machinery
for the settlement of demarcation disputes,— though
even in this respect the present Federation is not very
successful,— but it will not add appreciably to the
fighting force of the Unions concerned. Thus we
have recently seen the Boilermakers severing them¬
selves from the rest of the Unions and deciding to
do their bargaining on their own in future.

It may be said generally that, except in very peculiar
circumstances, as, for instance, in the Cotton Trade,
no Federation which has not a financial basis of
permanent contributions per member of all affiliated
Unions will add appreciably to the collective bar-

TRADE UNION STRUCTURE

219

gaining power of the workers. This is the real test
of the validity of a Federation, and, under it, most of
the existing Federations fail. Some have not even
the power of levying their affiliated societies in sup¬
port of disputes ; others have the power of levy, but
exact no regular contributions. In practice, neither
of these provisions really secures concerted action.
There is no security that a particular section will
not break away from the rest as soon as independent
action suits it best. To be effective, the Federation
must have, in most industries, a basis of permanent
contributions ; but this at once raises difficulties.
The Unions in many cases join Federations in the
hope of getting something for nothing ; each has its
own business basis, and is probably liable to strikes in
a degree different from the rest. Each section is there¬
fore unwilling to merge its individuality unless it is
sure of getting as much as it gives, and a Federation
is seldom in a position to ensure this. It is too liable
to have its whole resources drained in support of one
section, so that the rest pay in, and when their turn
comes to draw out, find that there is no money left.
It has been found impossible for a Federation to keep
a real check over the sections composing it ; their
freedom of action is too often financially disastrous.

It is sometimes argued that these difficulties may
be met by the delegation of greater powers to the
Federation by the various Unions. Where this is
done, the Federation tends to pass over into an
Amalgamation purely for fighting purposes. But if
it is necessary to amalgamate for one purpose, will
not Amalgamation prove an advantage for all ?
Federation, conceived in this manner, turns out to be
a half-way house to complete Amalgamation.

No doubt, the difficulties in the way of complete

220

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

Amalgamation on anything like an industrial basis
are far too great to be overcome in a few years. Feder¬
ation, therefore, even in those industries in which
it cannot possibly be regarded as a final solution of
the problem, may sometimes be a first step. If a
Federation is formed, its inadequacy may gradually
be seen ; greater and greater powers may be delegated
to it, and the Unions composing it may tend finally
to coalesce.1

Take, for example, the schemes for closer union
now being discussed by ten General Labour societies.
Two sets of proposals have been prepared: one set
provides for complete amalgamation of all the Unions
concerned ; the other for what is in effect an amalga¬
mation for fighting purposes. This second scheme,
however, is regarded as being only temporary, and
the Unions joining together on that basis have in
view a complete amalgamation at some future time.

Federation, then, in the sense of amalgamation for
purely industrial purposes, it may be necessary to
accept in a few industries as a first step in the direc¬
tion of the complete fusion that is bound to come
m the end. We shall be in a better position to apply
this view to paiticular industries when we have seen
what are the difficulties that stand, in the various
cases, in the way of fusion.

Amalgamation, we have seen, may proceed along
the. lines of either ‘ occupational ’ or ‘ industrial ’
LInionism. The attempt to apply these two methods
at once over the whole of industry can only end in
bickering and disunion. The great new organisations
thus created will at once become involved in squabbles
and recriminations that may well prove a greate^
danger to Trade Unionism than the whole demarcation

1 On the other hand, some Federations have only been
created for the purpose of staving off amalgamation.

TRADE UNION STRUCTURE

221

problem has ever been. Knowing how employers
have used the question of demarcation to sow dis¬
sension among the workers, we have every reason to
fear that they will not be slow in grasping their new
advantage, and turning the weapon of solidarity
against the workers themselves. An instance will
make the danger plainer. The General Railway
Workers’ Union, now fused in the National Union of
Railwaymen, catered for all classes of workers employed
by Railway Companies. The Amalgamated Society
of Railway Servants, on the other hand, made no
attempt to organise workers employed in Railway
construction shops ! When fusion was proposed, the
General Railway Workers’ Union refused 1 to come
into any scheme which did not provide for complete
* Industrial ’ Unionism. They carried their point,
and membership of the N.U.R. was made open to all
employees of Railway Companies. There was, at the
time, a great deal of ill feeling on the question, and
Mr. J. H. Thomas, M.P., of the A.S.R.S., definitely
declared that no attempt would actually be made to
organise workers in the sheds. This remark, on
representation from the G.R.W.U., he was at once
compelled to withdraw. However, pressure from
Industrial Unionists and the views of individual
organisers have forced the hand of the N.U.R., and
in some centres a campaign is being waged to enrol
all Railway workers in the one organisation. This
at once gives rise to a difficult problem. The skilled
mechanics of all crafts employed in the Railway sheds
have long been organised, for the most part, in the
Amalgamated Society of Engineers, the Boilermakers,

1 See the interesting and angry series of articles published
at the time of the fusion in the Daily Herald and the Daily
Citizen.

222

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

the Steam Engine Makers, the United Machine Workers,
and certain ‘ craft ’ Unions of a similar type. As
soon, therefore, as the N.U.R. attempts to touch
the skilled workers in the ' shops ’ it will come into
direct conflict with the A.S.E. and other craft Unions.
Such a conflict between Unions can end only in
disaster. This, however, is not the only difficulty.
The A.S.E. has been, up to the present, mainly an
amalgamated society of skilled crafts. It has done
very little to organise the unskilled or even the
semi-skilled workers in the engineering trades. Now,
however, a new situation is arising, and it is broadening
its basis of membership. The great barrier to the
organisation of the unskilled in the A.S.E. has been,
in the past, the comparatively shifting and temporary
character of unskilled work. If the unskilled worker
had joined the A.S.E., he might have left the day after
for some quite different occupation. But of late
years, beside the skilled mechanic, there has been
growing up a new class of workers ; at first unskilled,
they gradually develop into machine-minders capable
of doing, with the best modern machinery, a great
deal of work that formerly went exclusively to the
skilled mechanic. 1 hese men are at present, for the
most part, either unorganised, or members of General
Labour Unions, and it is among them that the pro¬
paganda of the N.U.R. may be expected to make
headway. But once many of these workers are
organised in the N.U.R., there is bound to be a conflict
with the A.S.E. Already the barrier between skilled
and unskilled is breaking down ,■ the A.S.E. is begin¬
ning to realise that it must broaden its basis to include
the semi-skilled, who have already ceased to be casual
or ‘ general ’ labourers, and we may expect, unless a
compromise is reached, a struggle, in the near future.

TRADE UNION STRUCTURE 223

between the A.S.E., the N.U.R., and the General
Labour Unions.

This is only a typical instance of the problems to
which conflicting attempts at closer unity are now
giving rise. The number of such cases could easily be
multiplied, and more will become apparent as we
proceed to deal with the problem of organisation in
several of our great industries and occupational
groupings.

The Mining Industry is, as we have seen, the sim¬
plest, because it already possesses what is, in effect,
an approximation to Industrial Unionism. The chief
problem with which it is now faced is not that of
membership, but that of internal structure, with
which we shall deal later on. There are, however,
certain great questions relating to the membership
of Miners’ Unions which must be discussed here. To
what extent should surface-workers be enrolled in the
Miners’ Union ? Before attempting to answer this
question, we had better get clear as to what we meant
by saying that the Miners have already got something
like ‘ Industrial ’ Unionism. That statement was,
in fact, misleading; the Miners’ Unions are only
‘ Industrial ’, in so far as they are at the same time
* occupational’. That is to say, the Mining Industry
differs from most others in being essentially simple ;
it is not a group of trades, but a single great industry ;
and the main point is that, in consequence, the or¬
ganisation of the employers follows, on the whole, the
lines of the workers’ occupation. The greater ‘ occu¬
pational ’ Unionism which the Miners possess, is itself
in this instance an approximation to ‘ Industrial ’

Unionism. .

It is, however, an interesting feature m the Mining
world just now that the attention of the Miners’

224

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

Federation is gradually turning in the direction of the
Surfacemen, who were excluded from the Eight Hours
Act and the Minimum Wage Act. These surface-workers
are, as a whole, a lowly paid class, and in turning its
attention to them, the Miners’ Federation is practically
declaring in favour of real and effective ‘ Industrial '
LTnionism. It does seem to be true that the success of
mine workers in securing decent conditions of life and
labour depends solely on their power to paralyse the
industry. This should apply no less to surface-
workers, who number in all about 100,000, than to
actual coal-getters, and therefore the interests of the
surfacemen seem to lie on the side of throwing in their
lot with the underground workers. As far as the ‘ un¬
skilled ’ surface-worker is concerned, there seems to be
clearly this identity of interest ; but what of the
skilled machine-worker employed about a mine ? The
engineer may pass from one industry to another in
pursuit of his calling ; he may be one year in a railway
shed, the next in a mine, and the next again in a
textile factory. This transference, however, is be¬
coming more rare ; engineers pass into Mining from
other industries ; but they tend less and less to pass
out again. To some extent, therefore, there are no
longer the old difficulties in the way of organising
surface workers in an Industrial Union. The minef’s
object is to paralyse the mine when and as he pleases ;
any worker, therefore, who can aid in this process
he feels the importance of organising. Now, the
handful of mining enginemen, by concerted action,
could absolutely paralyse the whole industry. A
strike of a few enginemen in a mine is, by itself, enough
to stop the mine, whatever attitude the underground
workers may adopt. The Miners have realised this,
and consequently, in South Wales especially, there is

TRADE UNION STRUCTURE

225

a vigorous movement in favour of complete Industrial
Unionism. Where, as in South Wales, the workers
pursue a militant policy, it becomes important to
secure complete cohesion against the employer ; in
other counties, where the policy of the Union is less
militant, the position of the surfaceman has not
led to trouble. It seems, however, quite clear that the
problem of Industrial Unionism will first become really
acute in the Mining Industry, and it is essential to
define our attitude towards it.

The unskilled worker on the surface is, of course, in
a different position from the craftsman. It does seem
desirable, and, as the Miners’ Federation turns its
attention more to the surfacemen, inevitable, that all
such workers should gradually be absorbed by it.
Probably this transference will be accomplished
without very disastrous friction,1 but the problem of
the craftsman is far more serious. In the absence of
any scheme for transferring mechanics from one
Union to another as they shift from industry to
industry, it does seem that we have to choose between
abandoning all hope of industrial solidarity and
accepting the inconvenience of making a mechanic
shift his Union with his employment. In fact, how¬
ever, mine craftsmen are usually permanently attached
to the industry and are organised in separate small
Unions of their own. The real problem is that of
absorbing these Unions, which show no desire for
fusion. The problem does not seem to admit of
immediate solution, but on the whole it must be recog¬
nised that craftsmen will not be prepared to come into
the Miners’ Unions unless the miners are ready to
make them some return. The craftsmen, if they are

1 Though it is already the cause of serious trouble with the
general labour Unions.

15

226

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

to secure their interests, must have special representa¬
tion as a section. If their sectional interests are
properly safeguarded, there seems no final reason why
they should not come into the Miners’ Union. The
miners rightly aim at complete Industrial Unionism.

In the Railway world, also, something resembling
an Industrial Union is an actual fact..1 The N.LbR.,
with roughly 300,000 members, admits any worker
employed by a Railway Company, though its policy
in relation to ‘ shop ’ workers is not yet well defined.
We took this particular case as an illustration of the
difficulties of ‘ Industrial ’ Unionism, and pointed out
the pitfalls ahead of the N.U.R. Briefly, the situation
is this. Any attempt, on the part of the N.U.R., to
destroy the hold of the craft Unions over railway
mechanics must fail. The A.S.E. is too strong to be
driven off the field, and if the rivals merely divide
up the members between them, the last state will
be worse than the first. The N.U.R., it is true, is
to some extent justified in its attitude by the past
policy of the craft Unions, which, with a very large
membership in railway shops, have done little to
secure the interests of those members. This may
lend colour to the view that even skilled railway
mechanics should leave the A.S.E. and pass into the
N.LT.R. But if the A.S.E. has done little for its
railway members, the mechanic needs assurance that
the N.U.R. will do more. He is always chary of
merging his individuality in a great whole of all
sorts of workers, and he is not likely to succumb
to the blandishments of N.U.R. organisers. This,
however, is only half the difficulty. The unskilled
and semi-skilled workers in railway shops are now

1 The Locomotive Engineers and Firemen and the Railway
Clerks remain outside.

TRADE UNION STRUCTURE

227

divided between the General Labour Unions, the actual
Engineering Unions, and the N.U.R. These workers
range from the quite unskilled and semi-casual
labourer to the almost skilled machine-tender who
began as a labourer. Clearly their organisation
presents considerable difficulty. If they get into the
N.U.R. , while the skilled workers remain in the A.S.E.
and the craft Unions, demarcation disputes of the
most virulent type may be expected.

For the present, then, any attempt on the part of
the N.U.R. to get all railway mechanics into its ranks
is likely to be disastrous ; but this should not blind
us to the fact that in the N.U.R., ultimately, they
ought to be. The only hope is that it will be possible
to avert a contest of national scope until there is more
hope of an amicable settlement. When the Industrial
Unionist principle has found general acceptance, there
will be a good deal of shifting of workers from one
Union to another. If the craft Unions are called
upon to give up their railway mechanics, they will
gain from other sources as many members as they will
lose. The duty of all who have the interests of Trade
Unionism at heart is to try to avert a conflict at a
time so inopportune as the present. The attempts
of the N.U.R. to enrol craftsmen have already, by the
success they have had, caused the A.S.E. , the Boiler¬
makers, and other Unions to pay more attention to the
position of their railway members, and the retention
of these members by the craft Unions seems, for the
moment, the only possible solution.1

The organisation of the engineering trades and the

1 As I write, a deadlock seems to have been reached.
Joint negotiations between the N.U.R. and the craft Unions
have broken down, and a fight seems imminent.

228

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

Shipbuilding industry raises many of the most per¬
plexing questions of modern Trade Unionism. The
two are very closely connected, and many of the same
Unions are engaged in both ; but, broadly speaking,
Shipbuilding is an industry, while Engineering is, at
most, only a group of trades. It will therefore be
most convenient to begin with Shipbuilding, which
possesses, at any rate, more superficial unity. Here,
however, the problem is highly complex. It is of the
first importance to secure really concerted action in
the shipyards ; but unfortunately the workers are
not merely divided into a number of craft Unions, but
into Unions which cut across several industries. The
Boilermakers are pre-eminently a shipbuilding Union,
but they are employed also in the railway shops ;
Carpenters and Joiners are equally occupied in Ship¬
building and in the Building industry, while Engineers
are found in large numbers and are organised largely
in the A.S.E. There are, further, among shipbuilders
themselves, sharp barriers of class and prejudice. The
Shipwright is clearly differentiated, in most places,
from the Boilermaker on one side, and from the
Carpenter and Joiner on the other. The Shipbuilding
industry is a great complex of craft Unions ; and as
soon as effective union is preached in the shipyards,
trouble may be expected. The A.S.E. and the
Carpenters and Joiners are too strong to be broken,
and fusion into a single organisation is, among such
partners, inconceivable. There are few signs at
present that the workers are alive to a need for closer
unity ; indeed, the most recent event is the actual
secession of the Boilermakers, by far the most im¬
portant Union, from the Shipyard Agreement. The
Boilermakers now believe that they can make better
terms on their own account, and, in face of such an

TRADE UNION STRUCTURE

229

attitude, nothing can be effected. Shipyard organisa¬
tion still bears about it the traces of the time when
wood was the material mainly used ; as iron and,
later on, steel took its place, new classes of workers
took the place of the old, and sometimes old classes
changed their occupation. Thus Shipwrights are no
longer exclusively wood-workers, though they still
monopolise the heavy wood work, while the lighter
is done by Carpenters and Joiners. Metal Work is
done partly by Boilermakers, but also to some extent
by Unions of Smiths and Strikers, Blacksmiths, etc.,
who had originally no connection with Shipbuilding.
The general result is a hopeless disorganisation ;
there is no prospect, even were it desirable, of a
separate Industrial Union in the Shipyards. The
existing method of a national agreement between
distinct Unions on the one side and a strong Em¬
ployers’ Federation on the other seems inevitable, and
even this amount of concerted action has become
extremely difficult in face of the attitude of the Boiler¬
makers. It may be, however, that this is only a
passing phase ; it is certain that no separate reorganisa¬
tion of the Shipbuilding Unions on ' Industrial ’ lines
is anything like a possibility at present. How the
situation may be modified by developments in other
industries it is hard to say ; but it is clear that a
further complication would be created by the absorp¬
tion of the Carpenters and Joiners into a Building
Industrial Union. This, however, the present position
in the building industry makes very improbable.

The Amalgamated Society of Engineers, founded
in 1851, was the earliest of the great amalgamated
craft Unions which we have decided to call ‘ occu¬
pational.’ We might therefore expect to find in
this case at least a really developed form of organisa-

230

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

tion. Nevertheless, although there have been constant
disputes and keen interest taken within the Union in
theoretical questions of function and membership,
the Engineering trades afford at present the worst
examples in the country of contending and over¬
lapping Unions. This is no doubt to some extent the
result of changes in methods of manufacture ; but
it is also very largely the fault of the A.S.E. itself.
In general, two difficulties have presented themselves.
First, the A.S.E. has never succeeded in suppressing
craft Unionism among the skilled workers. Not only
have some of the smaller Unions refused to come in,
but sections that once formed part of the A.S.E.
have split off and proclaimed themselves inde¬
pendent. In fact, the A.S.E. has to a great extent
failed even in the limited task which it set before
itself. The causes of this failure are not far to seek ;
the A.S.E. has ignored the differences of section and
occupation among its members, and, by its refusal to
provide for sectional interests, has made it impossible
for particular crafts and occupations to back up their
grievances with the united force of the Union. What
is said of the A.S.E. applies with equal force to the
other general engineering Unions, which persist in
spite of all attempts at amalgamation. The Steam
Engine Makers and the Toolmakers, for instance,
serve no useful purpose by continuing to exist separ¬
ately. They have not even the excuse of the pure
craft Unions— Patternmakers and Ironfounders. A
vast amount of more or less articulate discontent
exists even among those who are in the A.S.E.

The second difficulty cannot be laid equally to the
charge of the Union officials. In recent years, En¬
gineering, more than any other group of trades, has
been affected by the change in industrial processes.

TRADE UNION STRUCTURE

231

In the early days of the Society, the gulf between
skilled and unskilled was so wide, and the unskilled
worker so shifting in his occupation, that naturally
the A.S.E. even attempted to organise only the skilled.
The result was a strong Union of skilled workers
entirely separate from, and seldom even acting in
concert with, the unskilled. We have seen already
how profoundly the recent rise of a semi-skilled class
has modified this situation : the skilled worker can no
longer stand in isolation and neglect the less skilled.
The interests of the two classes are becoming identical ;
and a beginning of the recognition of this change
may be seen in the dawning of almost unorganised
co-operation between them in the largest centres.
The Workers’ Union and the A.S.E. are at last be¬
ginning to feel the need for combined action.

It is not, however, easy to see what will immediately
follow from this tendency. It is clear that a levelling-
up of the standard of life between skilled and semi¬
skilled is coming about ; but their standards are still
different enough to make unity hard to bring about.
The less skilled workers in the engineering trades,
where they are organised at all, belong largely to
General Labour Unions, in which the standards of
benefits and the expenses of organisation are both
lower than in the A.S.E. These Unions are some¬
times financially unsound, and are neaily always
spending all they receive ; the workers who belong
to them are therefore getting benefits almost without
paying for organisation. But it is probable that a
bad time is ahead for some of the Geneial Labour
Unions, and when that bad time comes, the chance
of the A.S.E. will come with it.1 There are plenty

1 It may come, under happier auspices, when the real func¬
tions of the General Labour Unions are recognised.

232

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

of signs that the members of the A.S.E. now realise
that the reform of their organisation is essential ; they
have already thrown open their Union to a good
many of the semi-skilled, but at present they have
not made for them all the separate provision that
is necessary. It seems clear, however, that as the
semi-skilled mechanic becomes everywhere a per¬
manent and integral member of the engineering group
of trades, he must either form yet more Unions of
his own, or else come into the A.S.E. Let the A.S.E.
but remodel itself more or less on the lines of the
German Metal Workers’ Union, which we have al¬
ready described,1 and there will be a possibility
of real unity in the engineering trades. Such unity
must carry with it the almost complete inclusion of
the shipbuilding industry. Shipbuilding and engineer¬
ing are so closely connected ; workers shift so easily
from one class of shop to another ; and the same
problems occur to such an extent in all branches of
these metal industries that complete fusion is essential.
Already both are linked up in the Engineering and
Shipbuilding Trades Federation, which, as we saw,
is ineffective for fighting purposes. Scheme after
scheme of amalgamation and closer unity has been
put forward ; perhaps some day the workers or the
officials will decide to act. Then the main problem
for both engineering and shipbuilding would have
been solved by the creation of a metal workers’ Union,
and there would only remain the very difficult problem
of bringing in the major part of the woodworkers in
the shipyards.

The foregoing account may seem to make the
problem too simple, by leaving the really unskilled
worker out of the reckoning. It is true that a semi-
1 In Chapter VI.

TRADE UNION STRUCTURE

233

skilled class has, of late years, risen to importance
out of the ranks of the unskilled ; but this class by
no means covers the whole field of general labour.
There would remain, outside any such Metal Workers’
Union as we have suggested, a large number of general
labourers attached to the Metal trades. The question
therefore arises whether these too should be absorbed.
The problem is, in this case, altogether different.
The semi-skilled machine-minder has become, broadly
speaking, permanently a member of the engineering
group of trades ; his acquired knack represents his
industrial value, and he is unlikely to sacrifice it by
departing to an industry in which he will merely
revert to the ranks of the unskilled. He may of
course be discharged in times of trade depression,
and this gives rise to one of the most difficult problems
a skilled Union has to face when it admits the
unskilled ; but, broadly and in the majority of
cases, he may be regarded as a permanent member
of his trade. Even where he shifts from industry
to industry, he is no less dangerous a poten¬
tial blackleg, and should therefore be in the In¬
dustrial Union of his work for the time being.
What is needed is a transfer system from Union to
Union.

The way in which this change will be accomplished
cannot, as yet, be foreseen. The method most usually
advocated is a gradual strengthening of the Engineer¬
ing Trades’ Federation ; but there seems to be little
hope that the Unions will be prepared to surrender
to such a body the necessary powers. Could the
A.S.E. only remodel itself from within, so as to allow
adequate representation of sectional interests, there
is little doubt that it would soon tend to absorb its
rivals in the Engineering trades. By loss of member-

234

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

ship or bv actual amalgamation, all these rival Unions
might be fused into a single compact body, which
would soon become a general Metal Workers’ Union.
This is, doubtless, looking far ahead ; but, until the
A.S.E. gives such a lead, there will be no great change
in the present forms of organisation. The Engineer¬
ing Federation is deplorably weak, and there seems to
be no general wish to strengthen it. The A.S.E. alone is
in a position to give a lead ; where it goes, the Steam
Engine Makers, the United Machine Workers and
the rest will follow. The sole hope of effective or¬
ganisation in this group of trades rests on the A.S.E.

It will have been noticed that, whatever the industry
in question, proposals for Industrial Unionism almost
always came up against the same two problems — that
of the mechanic and that of the general labourer. So
far, we have been dealing mainly with the former ;
but we now come to an industry in which the really
acute problem is that of the general labourer. Cer¬
tainly the best known of the ‘ Industrial ’ Federations
at present in existence is that of the Transport Workers,
created in March 1911, on the motion of Ben Tillett,
the Secretary of the Dock, Wharf, Riverside and
General Workers’ Union. The Federation now em¬
braces twenty-eight Unions concerned in Transport,
six of these being General Labour Unions, paying
affiliation fees on behalf of only a part of their member¬
ship. The Federation was highly successful in 1911 ;
but its weakness was demonstrated in the strike of
1912, which proved conclusively that, for the Transport
Industry, mere Federation, without a strong financial
basis, is totally inadequate. All through the 1912
strike, which, mistaken though it was, should have
been supported when once it had begun, the Unions
affiliated showed a lamentable lack of cohesion, and

TRADE UNION STRUCTURE

235

the Federation found itself powerless to secure really
effective action. This is to be accounted for mainly
by the nature of the industry. A Federation of highly
skilled workers in a localised industry such as those
engaged in the textile industry, can often without
difficulty take united action. Between highly skilled
trades, ‘ blacklegging ’ on a large scale is impossible,
and no Union has anything to gain, even for the
moment, by breaking away from the rest. But with
comparatively unskilled work, such as a good deal of
the work done at the docks, it is fatally easy for one
Union to blackleg another, and, except by united
action of the whole industry, any effective revolt is
impossible. This was demonstrated very clearly in
1912, when the refusal of the Seamen and Firemen’s
Union to co-operate contributed largely to wreck the
Transport strike. The 1912 failure was not the fault
of the Federation, but it has shown once for all the
need for much closer unity. The present Federation
has done its best, but it has too little power, and it is
therefore necessary to investigate the possibilities of
either strengthening it or securing complete amalga¬
mation.

Fusion long presented grave difficulties, arising
largely from the presence in the field of two alternative
methods. Long before the Federation of Transport
Workers was even suggested, attempts had been
made to unite in a single union all general labourers.
At the very time when Ben Tillett succeeded in found¬
ing the Transport Workers’ Federation, a council repre¬
senting Labourers’ Unions was engaged in drawing up
a scheme of amalgamation, and in August 1912 Mr.
J. R. Clynes published a scheme he had been asked to
prepare for the Gasworkers’ and General Labourers’
Union. It is well known that many of the workers

236

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

at the Docks are members of the Gasworkers’ and other
Labourers’ Unions. There was thus a direct conflict
between the two schemes, and a situation only tolerable
with the Transport Workers federated would become
impossible if federation gave place to amalgamation.
“ The forces,” writes Mr. Clynes, “ that are making
for the amalgamation of labourers in all classes of
work can be disturbed by the appeals, for instance,
to amalgamate the Unions which cover labouring
men in the Transport trades. There are Unions which
include thousands of transport workers, but at the
same time cover thousands of other men not engaged
in transport work at all. It is surely better to build
on lines that will cover all the conditions of a man’s
varying chances of employment than to limit an
amalgamated body to just the one class of work that
for the time being a man may be allowed to follow.”

This raised an awkward problem. On the one hand,
it was clear that the Transport Workers’ Federation, or
better Union, would be by far the most efficient unit
in trade disputes, and on the other hand, while water¬
side work retains the characteristics of casual labour,
it is impossible to secure that a man’s membership of
such a Union shall cover the whole of his activities.
Though, with the gradual decasualisation of waterside
labour, such as is being brought about at some of the
docks, it seems that the latter disadvantage will
partially disappear, yet, when the permanent nature
of labour organisation is taken into account, it seems
essential, even at the cost of some difficulties in the
present, to preserve to some extent the separateness
of the transport workers. What is needed is co¬
operation between the united transport workers and
the united general labourers, including effective
arrangements for regulating the influx of general

TRADE UNION STRUCTURE

237

labourers to the docks. In any case, closer union in
the transport trade is so urgently needed that the con¬
siderations brought forward by Mr. Clynes cannot be
allowed to outweigh that necessity. Still, there is
something in his protest that “ it is futile on one day
to recommend amalgamation on the basis of trades,
on the next day on the basis of class, and on the third
day on the basis of the industry in which a man may
be employed ”. But on the whole, this is not so foolish
and futile as he seems to think. The different plans
proposed arose from the different circumstances of
various industries, and the foolishness arises only
when it is attempted to make each particular principle
hold generally, over every industry, no matter how
different the conditions may be.1

It is clear that, while so many Transport workers
remain organised in General Labour Unions, and while,
on the other side, so many Transport Unions contain
a large percentage of General Labourers, all attempts
at amalgamating the Transport industry separately
are bound to fail. It is necessary to make the best
of a bad job, and to set about the task of strengthening
the Federation. Unless the Federation can be pro¬
vided with a big enough centralised fighting fund to
enable it to take the conduct of disputes into its own

1 In the event, the two parties took the only course that
seemed open to them. The two amalgamation schemes wero»
fused into one, and proposals were laid before a joint meeting.
Just as it seemed possible that something might be done,
the European War broke out. Very unwisely, it seems to
have been decided to shelve the scheme. It seems probable
that the desire of certain officials to scotch it was largely
responsible for this decision. It is essential, as the Secretary
of the Transport Workers’ Federation maintained, that
fusion of the composite body shall be accompanied by sectional
organisation.

238

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

hands, the successes of 1911 will not be repeated. The
Transport Workers succeeded in 1911 mainly because
their revolt was unexpected : the strength of their
organisation was not, by itself, enough to account
for their victory. The failure of 1912 proved the in¬
adequacy of their organisation to explain their success.
A strong fighting fund is absolutely essential : not
only does it enable a Federation to carry on a strike
with confidence in its own powers ; it also gives the
individual Unions a motive for loyalty. Federation
without a strong financial basis fails not merely from
financial exhaustion, but because it has no hold over
the Unions composing it. Give the Transport industry
a really strong Federation, in which adequate fees are
paid by the Unions for all their members engaged in
Transport, and the organisation of the workers will
have been given an enormous impetus. Complete
amalgamation will follow in time ; but any attempt
to hasten it just now will merely cause the withdrawal
of the General Labour Unions from the Federation,
and instead of securing solidarity, will prevent even
the present amount of concerted action.

Germany, we have seen, differs from Great Britain
in having no General Labour Unions. The labourer
is, in nearly all cases, organised there in the same
Union as the skilled worker. In England, we find
exactly the opposite tendency. Not merely the
unskilled labourers, but even a good many workers
possessed of considerable skill, are organised in great
rival General Labour Unions. It is impossible to
discover at all accurately to what industries the
members of these Unions belong ; but it is clear that
they have a considerable membership in nearly all
the staple industries, except Cotton and Railway
1 ransport. They are particularly important in the

TRADE UNION STRUCTURE

239

underpaid trades of the Black Country, in Engineering
and Shipbuilding, and, above all, in the docks. It
has for some time been realised that the competition
between the existing General Labour Unions is mere
waste of energy, and, as we have seen, plans for their
amalgamation have been presented in full draft to
the Unions concerned. It is very improbable that
complete amalgamation will follow immediately, but
it is quite clear that the step alread}/ taken will
make such amalgamation merely a matter of time.
Now, only a madman would dream of attempting
directly to split up and destroy the General Labour
Unions as they exist to-day ; and it is clear that
fusion will make their position even more unassailable.
The General Labour Unions cannot be smashed in
a day, and any plans for Industrial Unionism that
rest on the hope of smashing them are bound to fail.
What then should be the attitude towards General
Labour amalgamation of those who regard the present
position of these Unions as, at best, a necessary evil ?
It is sometimes urged that one great Union will be
stronger than several smaller ones, and that it is
therefore best to hope for the failure of the fusion
scheme. It is no doubt true that the one great Union
will be stronger ; but, the existence of these Unions
being inevitable, may it not be better to have them
strong ? It will be easier to answer when we have
made clearer our attitude towards the General Labour
Unions as a whole.

We saw clearly, especially in dealing with Engineer¬
ing, that there is such a person as a real General
Labourer, a worker who is quite unskilled and
who shifts easily from one trade or industry to another.
Such mobile Labour, if there is much of it, may
sometimes need special organisation.1 Clearly, the

1 If Trade Unions bad a reasonable system of transferring
cards and members the problem would largely disappear.

240

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

proper function of the General Labour Union is to
organise those classes of workers who are engaged
in scattered or unorganised trades, till a separate
Union becomes possible. It ought to be a sort of
Trade Union clearing-house, retaining only such
members as could not well be permanently organised
in any other way. As soon as a worker came to be
permanently employed in some organised industry,
the General Labour Union should surrender him to
his appropriate Society. This conception would of
course involve a great remodelling of the General
Labour Unions. At present, when a Union has got
a man organised, it shows no willingness to surrender
him merely because another Union might put in a
more rational claim. The root of the evil is com¬
petition between Unions ; instead of being linked
up in a general organisation in which all could work
harmoniously together for the good of the whole, as
in Germany, our Unions are always fighting each
other for members, and are under no central control
whatsoever. A General Labour Union, if it is to keep
to its legitimate function, should be a part of the
central organisation ; its object should be to decasualise
and unload its membership on other Unions, and not
to retain all the members it can lay hands on. We
are far indeed from realising this end ; but it may be
that the fusion of General Labour Unions will turn
out to be a step in the right direction : it may be
that, united in one great body, these Unions will
learn their true function, and be prepared to hand on
their members. But a General Labour Union can
in the end work satisfactorily only where it is under
the direct control of a strong central Trade Union
authority co-ordinating the whole movement.

In fact, the whole problem of industrial solidarity

TRADE UNION STRUCTURE

241

is essentially bound up with that of central control
and direction. Germany, as we saw, was enabled
to realise so nearly perfect a form of organisation
just because the German Trade Union movement
began in the centre and spread gradually outwards,
because it was inspired throughout by a consistent
policy and a deliberate aim. The British movement
is in its present state of confusion because it began
with voluntary efforts all over the country, and because
there was no force capable of co-ordinating them or
influencing their development. It might have been
supposed that, by this time, the British movement
would have created for itself some influential central
organisation, that it would have realised the chaos
in which it is, and seen the remedy. That it has not
done this is one of its greatest sources of weakness,
and its failure can only be explained by the vested
interest the officials generally regard themselves as
having in the continuance of the present muddle.
Central control would at once involve such widespread
changes in methods of organisation that the officials,
as a rule, will have nothing to do with it.

We saw, in speaking of America, that there is
one form of Industrial Unionism which aims, like
the Knights of Labour, at organising all workers,
irrespective of occupation, in ' one big Union We
saw, further, how such a scheme, neglecting all
differences of interest and environment, is bound to
fail. At the same time, we recognised the value of
the recurring conception that fundamentally, under¬
neath all differences, and however real those differences
may be, the workers have but a single and identical
interest in the broadest sense. The method of ' one
big Union ’ is all wrong ; but equally wrong is the
method which takes account solely of differences,
16

242 THE WORLD OF LABOUR

and organises the workers into a number of entirely
separate Unions. The differences require to be
represented ; but they also require to be co-ordinated
and reconciled in the greater whole which stands for
the deeper identity.

In Great Britain, we have three bodies professing
to secure the co-ordination of the Labour movement
as a whole. These are the Trade Union Congress,
with its standing Parliamentary Committee, the
General Federation of Trade Unions, and the Labour
Party. It will be seen at once that none of these
is a really comprehensive co-ordinating body, com¬
parable in influence with the German General Com¬
mission of Trade Unions or even with the C.G.T. in
France. The Trade Union Congress has, indeed,
nearly 2,250,000 members out of about three millions
and a quarter of organised workers.1 It is, however,
a highly academic body ; at its annual gatherings
the same resolutions are proposed and carried year
after year, and practically nothing is done to give
effect to them. The Parliamentary Committee is,
as its name implies, still mainly concerned with the
influence of legislation on Labour : it has survived
from the times before the Labour Party, when it was
Labour’s chief political mouthpiece. Outside politics,
its functions are few, though it has recently shown a
tendency to take the problem of industrial structure
very gingerly in hand. It pronounces its opinion on
questions at issue between two Unions ; but until
the last year or so it has made no attempt to face
the difficult problems of Trade Unionism in the
industrial sphere. It is a very useful body in its
way ; but it shows no sign of becoming the co-ordinat¬
ing force of which we are in search.

Ihe Labour Party, that sad failure of Socialism
1 Now 3,000,000 out of 4,000,000 (1915).

TRADE UNION STRUCTURE

243

endeavouring, by a trick, to seem stronger than it
really is, naturally cannot perform any functions
in the industrial sphere. It seems to spend most
of its time trying to persuade the workers that strikes
are no use, and even industrial legislation does not
usually attract it. Clearly then, the Federation of
Trade Unions and Socialist Societies which is called
the Labour Party does not concern us here.

The General Federation of Trade Unions is a body
of the best intentions ; it lacks only power and
influence. Its total membership is still less than a
million, and the allegiance of some of these is by no
means secure. The General Federation set out to
unify the Labour movement by the provision of a
common fund for use in strikes ; each affiliated Union
pays in so much per member, and is entitled to so
much benefit in case of a strike. Even in the period
of industrial peace before 1910 it was possible to
see that the Federation was financially weak ; the %
coming of the labour unrest caused such a run on
its benefits that its financial position at present gives
cause for the greatest uneasiness. It must either
raise affiliation fees, or reduce its benefits ; and it
is feared that either course may mean a heavy loss
in membership. The history of the General Federation
is the old story of nearly all Federations ; the Unions
that joined came in very often in the hope of getting
something for nothing. Some of them have got it,
but others have been badly hit. Naturally, the
weakest Unions flocked to take advantage of the
chance to get benefits on such good terms as the
Federation offered. All went smoothly for a few
years ; but in 1911 came the uprising of the less
skilled workers, and the weaker Unions began to
drain the Federation’s resources. All through 1911

244

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

and 1912 the Amalgamated Society of Engineers,
for instance, was handing over large sums of money,
through the Federation, to unskilled or semi-skilled
workers — in the great Transport strikes especially.
Even so, with a few of the richer and more peaceful
Unions to draw upon, the Federation was quite unable
to make both ends meet. The greatest Unions, the
Miners, the Railwaymen and some of the other
great Unions, remained outside, and the Federation
found itself saddled with the liabilities, without being
in a position to command the assets, of the Labour
movement. Nor does the situation seem to be in
any way improving. The work done by the General
Federation under the Insurance Act will certainly
secure its permanence as the approved society of
many of the weaker Unions ; but there seems to be
a danger that insurance will become its main function.1
It has had, all along, to encounter an enormous
» amount of hostility ; time after time it has been
saved mainly by the endeavours of its secretary,
Mr. W. A. Appleton. So much effort must not be
wasted ; the Labour movement must come to realise
how important it is to have a central organisation
that is industrial and not political in character. For
the Trade Union Congress is almost as political as
the Labour Party ; tradition and temperament conspire
to make it the organ of the vague and general aspira¬
tions of Labour, when what is really wanted for the
Trade Union movement is a ‘ business government '
with a revolutionary aim.

It will be seen that, of the three bodies which
attempt to co-ordinate the British Labour movement,
two only could ever conceivably play any important

1 Along with banking, It has just completed arrangements
tor working through the C.W.S. Bank.

TRADE UNION STRUCTURE

245

part in the co-ordination of Trade Union effort in the
all-important sphere of industrial action. Helpless
at present, because it has neither the influence nor the
membership necessary, the G.F.T.U. is, in form at
least, exactly the co-ordinating body required.1 But
securing of the right amount of central control is a
matter much more of influence than of determinate
powers. There should be some body capable of
saying to two rival Unions that their rivalry is
a nuisance, and of saying so with the whole moral
weight of the Labour movement behind it. Such a
body, if it possessed the moral weight, would be better
without compulsory powers. Where compulsory
fusion would only go to make a bad spirit in the com¬
bined Union, moral suasion would create the sense of
solidarity, and the fusion would come about as a free
and deliberate act of the Unions concerned. This
should be the function of the General Federation
of the future, which should also have control over
the General Labour Union of the future- — the Unions’
‘ clearing-house,’ as we have called it. There seems
little prospect that such a body will be created at all
soon ; but sooner or later the British movement must
evolve its central authority, and there seems to be no
way of getting this except with the co-operation of
the Trades Union Congress and the General Federation.
It is of importance that the Federation should pass
safely through its present financial difficulties, and
particular Unions ought to be ready to make sacrifices
to save it. But, as long as two-thirds of the Trade
Unionists in this country remain outside, the financial
problem will remain unsolved. Membership of the

1 Mutual insurance against strikes, though it may be best to
leave it voluntary as it is now, should be organised through
the central industrial body.

246

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

General Federation of the future will be regarded as
the duty of every Trade Unionist.

It is easy to see, further, what the future General
Federation, working along with the General Labour
Unions, could do in organising the unorganised. The
existing Federation has already done a little ; but
it is hampered for want of funds, and very often it gets
no return for the money it spends on such work. The
most remarkable feature of English Trade Unionism
is the absence of organised propaganda. More work
has been done in this direction by Mr. Tom Mann
alone than by the whole of organised Labour. This
too arises mainly from the lack of any central body
capable of co-ordinating local and sectional effort.
There should be, all over the country, properly organised
national campaigns on behalf of Trade Unionism, and
these should be paid for by the movement as a whole,
and directed from the centre.

Again, the Trade Union movement, as a whole, has
no brains. It has worked out no common policy and
makes no attempt to get general Trade Union questions
generally understood. The statistical departments of
English Trade Unionism do not exist ; there is no
idea at the centre what is happening anywhere else,
and still less what has happened in the past. There is
no Trade LInion literature, and there is no staff capable
of writing it. Soon, it is clear, all these omissions will
have to be repaired. Great Britain cannot go lagging
behind the rest of the world, allowing the most back¬
ward nations to pass her in methods of organisation,
and doing nothing to catch them up. This very
question of Trade Union structure is the worst of all
the instances of our incompetence. In France, the
C.G.T., wholly without compulsory powers, has done
much to reduce the number of synclicats and Bourses

TRADE UNION STRUCTURE

247

du Travail (Trades Councils). In Germany, amalgama¬
tion has been throughout under central guidance, and
there has been the less need for it, because organisation
also has been throughout centrally inspired. In Great
Britain, where we have the worst possible muddle in
organisation, we find no attempt on the part of any
authority to make the situation clear, or to work out a
policy for meeting it. Amalgamation proposals come,
in the main, from a few isolated individuals, and meet
with the coldest welcome. The main problem of
to-day is to force the Trade Unions to take up the
question for themselves.

In studying the future of some of our great Labour
organisations, we purposely chose industries or groups
of trades in which there seemed a reasonable hope of
effecting some change in the near future. When a
greater number of industries is taken into account,
and especially in the case of some of the smaller or less
organised industries, there will be new problems to
be faced. These, however, hardly admit of detailed
treatment in such a work as the present, and, generally
speaking, the foregoing examples may be taken as
typical of the whole problem. There is, indeed, one
great industry about which nothing has been said,
although its organisation presents highly complex and
peculiar features. The cotton industry, centred in
Lancashire, has developed a system of organisation
altogether its own, and any attempt to settle its
problems for it on general grounds would be worse
than useless. That organisation was admirably de¬
scribed by Mr. and Mrs. Webb in Industrial Democracy ;
but it has changed considerably since they wrote.
As opponents of amalgamation very often uphold
against it a theory of federation based mainly on
the example of the textile industry, it is necessary to

248

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

point out what makes its organisation so peculiar in
character.

First, the textile industry is localised. Its concen¬
tration in Lancashire makes organisation very easy,
and, as Trade Unionism reached maturity there very
early, the spirit of craft Unionism is very strong. The
independent craft Unions are exceedingly unwilling to
surrender any of their separateness, and, under the
direction of strongly established leaders of a highly
conservative type, are still more unlikely to make any
move in a new direction than they would otherwise be.
Localisation, therefore, has made it easy for the
workers to organise, and has also tended to establish
the Unions in stereotyped forms which it is hard to
alter. There has been, further, very little difficulty,
since 1905, in securing concerted action in the ‘ manu¬
facturing ’ sections ; and this too is mainly due to
the localised character of the industry. Living all
together, and in no way disturbed by conflicting
appeals from various districts, all these sections have
found it easy to co-operate in case of need. One of the
great difficulties of the national craft Unions is that
it is exceedingly hard to reconcile national uniformity
with consideration for local differences. A national
Union lays down general terms, and reaches an agree¬
ment with the employers ; but, however good these
terms may be in themselves, they very often make
concerted action in a district impossible. Some of the
Unions, tied down by national agreements, cannot
help the rest. These difficulties, for the most part,
do not arise in the cotton industry, over the whole of
which, broadly speaking, uniform conditions prevail.
We are not speaking here of the woollen industry,
which is very badly organised and far more scattered ;
it has its own problems, which make a common

TRADE UNION STRUCTURE

249

organisation far more necessary. In the cotton
industry a good deal has been secured by the method
of federation, local and general. Even general
unity is less important than local federation. The
industry being regulated on uniform principles already
well established, the Unions have, as a rule, to
deal only with particular infringements of the condi¬
tions laid down. This is done, in almost all cases, by
the Local Federations, which are fighting alliances
between local branches of the various Unions. The
Unions themselves are often called 1 amalgamations ’ ;
but this must not be taken as meaning that sectionalism
has been done away with. Sectionalism remains and
is rigidly preserved ; amalgamations are fusions of
local sectional Unions into a single great sectional
federation for industrial purposes only. The ordinary
meaning of the words ‘ amalgamation ’ and ‘ federa¬
tion ’ simply does not apply to the cotton industry ;
its problems are altogether separate, and have to be
studied quite by themselves. No doubt, modifications
have long been most necessary, and the Northern
Counties Textile Trades Federation, now purely a
' manufacturing ’ body, would be very materially
strengthened by the adhesion of the spinners and
card-room operatives ; but the whole question is
far too complicated to be dealt with in this chapter.
It is only necessary to speak of it enough to show that
arguments in favour of federation as against amalgama¬
tion cannot be applied to industry generally merely on
the strength of the organisation in the textile trades
of Lancashire. The cotton industry is quite peculiar,
and the fact that a form of organisation persists in so
localised a set of occupations is no argument at all
for its success in a scattered national industry.1

1 This does not mean that Industrial Unionism would not
work best in the cotton industry also.

250

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

The important point to realise is that the cotton
industry is the exception, and not the rule. We have
seen, in dealing with other trades and occupations, a
difficult problem that is in many respects the same
from industry to industry. Concerted action has not,
in most cases, been secured, and we have seen reason
for believing that it will not be secured until the
number of Unions is very greatly reduced. In many
trades, a great deal of actual overlapping exists.
In the cotton industry, there is practically no over¬
lapping or rivalry. The cotton organisations present
order of a kind ; most of the rest present only disorder.

It is, then, on the whole probable that the future
industrial organisation of this country will be by no
means so tidy and uniform as the advocates of various
schemes would have us believe. That the movement
towards consolidation is real no one can for a moment
doubt : that it will produce real results in the near
future is beyond question. But definite, cut-and-
dried schemes purporting to cover the whole industrial
field only serve the purpose of propaganda : they
interest men in the question, but they do not solve it.
It is left for the particular Unions concerned, with
such outside help as may be forthcoming, to formulate
their own schemes and carry them through for them¬
selves. The day of complete and final organisation
is far distant, and depends, in many particular in¬
stances, on a change both in the conditions of industry
and in the spirit of the workers. There is enough to do
without going into purely theoretical schemes which
have no chance of becoming actual. Those schemes
have done good work ; but it is time to recognise that
they are academic and theoretical, and to make use, for
practical purposes, of the interest that has been aroused
by them.

TRADE UNION STRUCTURE

251

A great many people seem to think, like Mr. F. H.
Rose when he debated with Mr. Tom Mann on In¬
dustrial Unionism,1 that, when they have asserted
that the only strikes which now have any chance of
success are the small ones, they have demonstrated
the futility of consolidating Trade Union forces.
But, even supposing them to have made good their
point — and the great Railway Strike is enough to
prove them wrong — they have done nothing of the
sort. These small disputes are practically never
‘ craft ’ disputes extending over a wide area : they are
far more often disputes in a single shop extending
to several crafts, or where they are not so at present,
they would be far more effective if they could be so
extended. As matters stand, sectionalism is nearly
as disastrous in small as in great disputes. It is no
easier for local branches of different Unions to make
temporary agreements with one another than for
two great national Unions to co-operate ; often co¬
operation between such branches is impossible because
the Unions are involved in national agreements.
There is urgent need for permanent working arrange¬
ments between the different Unions in particular
shops and localities. In particular, with the present
craft organisation, local strikes are often crippled
by the fact that agreements extending over a wider
area than the existing dispute expire at different
periods for the various Unions concerned. Wider
organisation on the lines of industry or occupation
by sweeping away such national or -county ‘ craft ’
agreements, would make local or shop strikes in¬
finitely easier and more effective. As it is, even when
the various sections do combine, a great deal of
1 A report of the debate fills Number vii. of the Industrial
Syndicalist.

252

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

valuable time is often wasted before they can take
action.

The aim of the Greater Unionism is not merely
to extend the area of strikes : it is to make strikes,
over whatever area they may be fought, more effective
and easier to arrange. The end in view is con¬
certed action ; but the aim is to make it easier, and
not to enforce it more than is necessary. It is de¬
sirable that all the workers in an industry should be
in a position to strike together ; but it is by no means
always desirable that they should do so. Whether,
therefore, we pin our faith to the small or to the
large strike — and we shall probably find that small
strikes are best in one industry and great strikes in
another — it is equally necessary to get the workers
organised in such a way as to avoid friction and dis¬
pute between different Unions. We shall see this
more clearly in the next chapter, when we come to
deal with problems of the internal organisation of
Trade Unionism.

We have passed in review, as briefly as possible,
and with reference to particular industries, the various
proposals for amalgamation. In doing so, we have
hitherto omitted to consider certain general difficulties
which present themselves. It is to this task that we
must now turn, in the confidence that, amalgamation
being a demonstrable necessity for fighting purposes,
no difficulty will be allowed to stand finally in the way.

If the main objects of fusion are clear, the main
obstacles are equally so. The first, the reluctance
of small groups to merge their individuality in larger
units, can only be overcome by argument showing
how necessary union is, and by assurances in the
rules of the new society, that their interests shall not
be neglected, nor their corporate unity disregarded.

TRADE UNION STRUCTURE

253

If the Unions are to reflect the natural structure of
industry, the degrees of individuality recognised by
them must be those to which local and occupational
unity naturally lead. No natural corporate bond
must be neglected, and none must be allowed to grow
so strong as to interfere with the free action of the
others. These general principles require, in every
case, a different application, according to the peculiar
structure of the industry concerned.

The second great difficulty, the opposition of
officials with vested interests or sympathies, can only
be overcome by the action of the rank and file. It will
no doubt be necessary to make the dislocation caused
by reconstruction as little violent as possible, and as
often as may be posts will have to be found for dis¬
placed officials ; but the Trade Union world cannot
afford to be too soft-hearted. In any case this is a
matter for Trade Unionists alone.

But we have not yet touched upon the three diffi¬
culties which are uppermost in men’s minds when they
consider the question of Amalgamation, the three
which are explicitly discussed, for instance, in the
recent pamphlet A Plea for the Amalgamation of All
Existing Trade Unions. The first of these difficulties
concerns contributions. In the Trade Unions at
present existing within a single industry, there are
naturally found very different scales of contributions
and benefits. Men of different degrees of pay and
skill naturally require benefits upon different scales.
This, the pamphlet points out, need cause no great
difficulty. “ Already a large number of Unions have
several scales of benefits corresponding to the difference
in subscriptions”, and it will be quite easy to carry
this practice into the new amalgamated Unions.
The A.S.E., which has already had to face the problem,

254

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

has long had various scales to suit varying needs. The
general difficulty then can easily be overcome. “ In
many cases, however, the Unions are paying out far
more in one particular form of benefit than is justified
by receipts for this special purpose.'’ This refers
mainly to superannuation, a growing source of un-
soundness in Trade Union finance. This, the pamph¬
let holds, will have to be rectified by an actuarial
revision of scale ; and, though this wall certainly be a
source of difficulty, there seems to be no other way.
It is, moreover, desirable that some such revision should
take place, if the Unions are to be secured from
financial crises in the future.

There is, indeed, the additional difficulty that not
only do benefits differ from LTnion to Union, but the
expenses of organisation also vary. There is, how¬
ever, little doubt that the higher expenditure on
organisation is a sound investment, and that the
difference is due mainly to the weakness of some of
the Unions.

On the whole, then, the question of benefits admits
of fairly easy solution. The second difficulty raised is
that of the inequality of the reserve funds of the Unions
it is proposed to amalgamate. In respect of this a
Trade Unionist friend of mine writes to me : “ There
is one difficulty (which could be surmounted) , and that
is the one of financial adjustment. I think, speaking
without any figures by me, that the A.S.E. have some¬
where about twice as much per head in their total
reserves as the Boilermakers ; but this would weigh
very little with any true Trade Unionist ”. Probably
in many cases there will be no difficulty ; but even
where there is it can be overcome. As the pamphlet
I have quoted points out, it would be possible for the
amalgamating Unions to pay in an equal sum per head,

TRADE UNION STRUCTURE

255

leaving the surplus to provide a separate benevolent
fund for the members of the old Union. This is un¬
wieldy and undesirable, but it is a possible method
in case a Union should stand out for its pound of flesh.

The third difficulty noticed by the pamphlet is that
of demarcation of work. It is quite certain that at
present the masters often play off one Union against
another in respect of demarcation, and, with the present
organisation, there is no adequate method of settling
such disputes peacefully. The Trades Councils at
present do something of this sort, but their decisions have
no compelling power, and they are not strong enough
to get them recognised or to prevent ill-feeling from
taking concrete form. With an Industrial Union
such questions would as a rule settle themselves, or at
least would arise only on the marginal ground between
two industries. Any job within the industry would
be open to any member at the standard rate, and, in
cases of doubt, the higher rate should always be ex¬
acted. By this means, the Labour Movement would
rid itself of what my Trade Unionist friend calls “ the
standing disgrace of organised labour ”.

Yet another difficulty in the way of amalgamation
is purely legal. At present, two Unions wishing to
join together have to get a vote of two- thirds of their
total membership in favour of the proposal. It is
well known that it is almost impossible to secure
large ballots in the Trade Union world, partly because
of slackness, but also because of the shifting nature
of employment. In most industries, then, it would
be impossible, with the law as it stands to-day, to
bring about amalgamation. Of course, the Railway-
men have succeeded ; but their case was comparatively
simple, as only three Unions were involved, and it is
comparatively easy on the railways to get in touch with

256

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

the members. Even so, the required majority was
only secured with the greatest difficulty ; and it would
be, to say the least of it, still more difficult to repeat the
success in the case of a less highly organised industry.

Mr. O’ Grady has presented to Parliament a short
single-clause Bill designed to remedy this anomaly ;
but the Labour Party appears to be wholly blind to
its importance, and it seems very improbable that it
will get through yet awhile. It will be seen, however,
that the question is urgent, and it is surprising that
the Unions have not pressed it upon Parliament. Un¬
fortunately, the official element in the Trade Lhiion
world is still so predominant that it is unlikely that
anything will be done, until some great scheme of
fusion is actually stopped by the legal difficulty, as
the Carpenters and Joiners have been stopped in the
past, owing to their 14,000 members abroad. Then no
doubt the Bill will pass. Such is the foresight of our
legislators.

The question of Trade Union structure has been
discussed at such length because the form of organisa¬
tion adopted must finally determine the powers and
policy of the Unions. Function, indeed, determines
structure ; and, if we set out with a clear idea of what
the function of Trade Unionism ought to be, the first
thing to be settled is the structure to be aimed at.
We have seen reason to believe that, as we set out
with an acceptance of the existing Unions as an essential
working basis, this structure cannot be anything like
so tidy and uniform as a purely theoretical considera¬
tion would suggest ; but we have realised also that,
under the diversity of forms which the improved
organisation must inevitably include, there may be
an essential unity of principle. Even in deciding
that the phrase “ Industrial Unionism ” is not by

TRADE UNION STRUCTURE

257

itself a panacea, we are not abandoning all hope of a
reorganisation based on the industrial principle. The
Greater Unionism ’ is not merely a vague phrase,
designed to cover the nakedness of an indefinite idea ;
it is a general principle of consolidation which, while it
has to be applied in many ways, is at bottom uniform.
Solidarity is a real aim, and in showing the inadequacy
of certain prima facie theories we are not denying
the principle that Labour must be put in a position to
act, as far as possible, as one man. In all the pro¬
posals we have made for particular Unions, we have
been trying to minimise the chances of friction and
maximise the opportunities for co-operation between
different classes of workers. Solidarity does not in¬
volve the General Strike, but it does involve the fullest
possible co-operation of all sections. This is what the
Labour movement lacks to-day. Deprived of central
guidance, and uninspired by any uniform ideal, the
Unions have gone on their own selfish way, and, in
doing so, have been blind to their real interests.
Their divisions have made them play the employers’
game ; instead of standing solidly together against
the masters, they have been engaged largely in petty
internecine strife and bickering. They have acted,
where they have not been too sluggish to act at all, in
absolute isolation and with a complete disregard for
the more general interests of the workers. This can
olny cease when the purely arbitrary divisions at
present existing between many of the Unions have
been broken down ; and then perhaps we may hope
that Labour will secure something like a tolerable
standard of life for itself. As long as the present
divisions and overlapping are allowed to continue,
the industrial movement will fail in its object. With¬
out men and without organisation little can be done ;

17

258

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

the Trade Union movement cannot transcend its
members. But the second essential problem, that of
control and management within the Union, can profit¬
ably be faced only when the actual limits of the organ¬
isation have been defined. To this secondary question
we may now safely turn.

CHAPTER VIII

TRADE UNION GOVERNMENT— CENTRALISATION
AND LOCAL AUTONOMY

The first purpose of Trade Unions is to fight the
employers. Any other activities in which they engage
should always be regarded as secondary and, in
comparison, unimportant. But, as structure is deter¬
mined by function, it is clear that the whole system
of control and management in the Unions must be so
ordered as best to further their main object. In
examining the question of control, we shall again be
taking into account above all the effect of various
methods upon the Union as a fighting body. If some
other form of organisation, more suitable to it as a
mutual insurance society, cannot be reconciled with
full fighting efficiency, that form will have to be dis¬
carded. The problem we shall chiefly consider will,
therefore, be the control of strikes and wages-move-
ments generally.

Clearly, control may be either central or local,

sectional or general. Wages-movements and disputes

about the conditions of labour may be kept under

strong central control, as in Germany, or a fairly

full measure of local freedom may be granted to each

locality, as usually happens in France. Again, all

power in disputes may be concentrated in the hands

of the executive or the members as a whole, or con-

259

260

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

siderable independence may be left to individual crafts
and sections within a single Union. In this chapter
we shall, as a rule, presuppose the conclusions of the
last ; we shall be dealing, in the main, with the
problem of control as it would present itself to a
movement intent on realising, in spirit as well as in
form, the ideal which has been named ‘ The Greater
Unionism

In this case, too, we shall find that mere generalisa¬
tion is useless. The particular forms of control needed
in each case will depend, as we saw that Trade Union
structure depends, on the nature of the trade or
industry concerned and on the present state of the
organisations covering it. As, however, control and
internal management can be remodelled more easily
than actual structure, it is far more possible to get a
theory applied and tested in this case. The modifica¬
tion of the system of internal control requires, as a
rule, no violent revolution, and, if one form can be
shown clearly to be superior to another, there is good
hope that it will in time be adopted.

We shall, therefore, in this case also, begin by
taking a few typical industries, and finding out what
system of internal organisation seems best suited to
the particular problems they present. We shall then
to some extent be in a position to speak more generally
of the tendencies of Trade Unionism as a whole, and
to pass a more or less general opinion on the question
at issue between centralisers and advocates of local
autonomy.

It must be clear, at the outset, that the forms of
control that are necessary will vary from Union to
Union according to the particular conditions of different
industries. For instance, where employers are closely
united and have agreed to present a united front to

TRADE UNION GOVERNMENT

261

the workers, the greater rapidity with which the
employers can act will usually necessitate the placing
of very extensive powers in the hands of the central
authority of the Union. This is especially the case
with the Railways. At the time of the formation
of the National Union of Railwaymen there was a
great deal of dispute concerning certain clauses in
its rules which seemed to certain Syndicalists and to
the Daily Herald to give far too much power to
officials. The crucial clause reads : “ The Executive
Committee shall have power to inaugurate, conduct
and settle all trade movements, and the method of
conducting such movements shall be determined by
the Executive Committee, as circjumstances warrant.”
It will be seen that nothing could go further ; the
Railwaymen have adopted the method of absolute
central control.

The opponents of this policy have generally made
the mistake of attempting to counter it with indis¬
criminate denunciations of officialdom and the asser¬
tion of the abstract rightness of local autonomy in
the barest form. They have often seemed to be
asserting the absolute right of every locality or section
to do exactly what it chooses, and at the same time
to command the support of the Union as a whole.
We have seen in the case of Sweden how fatal such a
policy must always be. Unless, as in France, the Trade
Unions are prepared to fight without fun'ds, the right
to call upon central funds must always be accompanied
by a right of the central authority to control.

It is significant that even in France, where, as a
rule, local autonomy prevails in the fullest sense, the
Railwaymen are organised, not in a National Federa¬
tion, but in one of the three Syndicats Nationaux,
with a central policy and central control. The close

262

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

co-operation of the various Railway Companies in this
country makes a similar form of organisation absolutely
essential. It is, however, possible to have centrali¬
sation without making it so rigidly absolute ; and
already the Knox strike on the North Eastern has
shown that, under provocation, the system is liable to
break down, In such a case, there is often nothing
for the Executive to do but to endorse the illegal act
of the section concerned : such irregularities, however,
show a weakness in the form of organisation, and
prove that there has been an attempt to carry centrali¬
sation too far.

It must, of course, be recognised that centralisation
cannot be treated , as an isolated question. The
amount of power that can safely be conceded to the
central organisation varies, not only in accordance
with the particular conditions of the industry con¬
cerned, but also according to the system of representa¬
tive government adopted. Where a great Union
attempts to govern itself on the principles of abstract
democracy, by means of an executive elected by
general vote of the whole membership, and provides
no sort of representation for sectional or local interests,
bureaucratic centralisation of the worst kind inevi¬
tably results. This is, to some extent, the case with
the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. If central
control is to work well in a large Union, it must be
accompanied and checked by real representative
government, which takes differences as well as
numbers into account. The recognition of this need
by the N.U.R. to some extent makes their absolute
central control a workable system. Both the sectional
and the local principles are operative in the election
of the Executive. The important passages of the
rule read as follows (italics mine) :

TRADE UNION GOVERNMENT

263

“ The Union shall be subdivided into six electoral
districts [for the election of the Executive Committee],
the various grades in these districts being divided into
four electoral departments , embracing locomotive,
traffic, goods and cartage, and engineering shop and
permanent-way men. . . . The Executive Committee
shall be divided into four electoral Departmental
Committees, each responsible for the interests of the
respective departments enumerated above.”

Thus, in the electoral district the local unit is
recognised, and, in the electoral department within
the district, the interest of the sections in each locality,
while the Departmental Committees are a recognition
that sectional interests are national as well as local.
Where the interest concerned is that of the employees
of a particular Railway Company, or where for some
reason adequate sectional representation is not secured
by these provisions, special conferences of those
concerned may be called. Thus at every step, the
Executive is at least certain of ascertaining clearly
the feeling of the sections or localities involved, and,
where this is so, it matters less in whose hands the
final power is placed. Trade Union Executives are
seldom deliberately tyrannical ; the muddles they
make come mainly from inability to discover the
feeling of the workers. The problem, therefore, is
largely to provide adequate machinery for the expres¬
sion of sectional and local opinion : it cannot be finally
expressed merely in terms of the actual power vested
in the various authorities.

The absolute centralised control of the N.U.R. is,
therefore, far less arbitrary in its actual operation
than its enemies have tried to make out. It is indeed
very unlikely that it would lead to difficulty in any
large number of cases. The question is whether all

264

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

the same advantages might not be secured, and the
inconveniences avoided, by a system in form less
absolute.

The most obvious modification is, of course, that
of balloting the workers concerned before terminating
strikes. This, however, need not apply equally to
every kind of strike. The first distinction, that
between offensive and defensive movements, need
not here be taken into account. In either case,
central direction is required on the Railways. A
second distinction may be made between national
strikes, local strikes, sectional strikes, and strikes
affecting a particular company. National strikes
should be terminable only after national ballot ; in
local strikes it should be open to the Executive to
take a ballot of the locality before closing the strike ;
in strikes affecting a single system, there should be
a delegate conference of the men employed on that
system before the strike could be closed. Sectional
strikes will tend to disappear in favour of local or
national movements ; where they occur, they should
be terminable by the Executive, acting on the advice
of the Departmental Executive. Sympathetic 1 strikes
should be controlled absolutely by the Executive.

The declaration and conduct of strikes should, in
the main, be left, as now, in the hands of the Executive.
Such cases as the Knox strike can hardly be provided
for in the rules ; but it is quite clear that in such
cases, sanction or no sanction, the men will come
out, and that they will be right. Possibly a more
rapid and summary method of sanctioning such
spontaneous movements may be established.

We have seen that, in the case of a highly centralised

1 Not ‘ spontaneous ’ strikes, like the Knox strike, but the
calling out of one section to support another.

TRADE UNION GOVERNMENT

265

industry , which is also a monopoly, it is necessary
for the Trade Union organisation also to be highly
centralised, and for enormous power to be placed in
the hands of officials. We have seen, further, that
the safeguard against ‘ officialism ’ in these industries
lies in the provision of a good system of representa¬
tive government, in which sectional and local interests
find adequate expression and co-ordination. We shall
now turn to an industry which stands, in every
respect, at the opposite extreme, and in which the
main problem is not simply the strengthening of
central control, but the reconciliation of a national
policy with a considerable degree of local autonomy.

The Building industry might have been dealt with
in the last chapter, when we were speaking of Trade
Union structure ; but as the problems that arise in
connection with it are rather those of the division of
control than structural, it seemed better to postpone
all consideration of it to this chapter. Organisation
in the Building industry has been going steadily
back for the past dozen years or so ; not only has no
considered attempt been made to bring in the un¬
organised, but even the old craft Unions have been
losing ground. This has been due very largely to
the change in industrial processes ; the old separation
of the crafts has been breaking down, and new classes
of workers, such as the Faience Fixers, have been
taking over much of the work that was once done
by other sections. In spite of this, the old Unions
have made no attempt whatever to broaden the
basis of their membership ; they have gone on in
the old way, and, naturally, have fallen behind.
The essential preliminary, therefore, to any sort of
effective organisation in the Building industry is a
broadening of the basis of the existing craft Unions.

266

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

This, however, is only a preliminary. A good deal
has been heard, during the last year or so, of schemes
for the amalgamation of all the Building Unions.
Conferences have been held, and a great deal of breath
wasted ; but it is quite certain that no amalgamation 1
will result. Only recently, the Carpenters and Joiners
have declared their determination to proceed no
further with any scheme of amalgamation. They
were ready to dally with vague suggestions ; but the
production of a concrete scheme at once frightened
them off. Their position with a very large number
of members engaged in other industries, especially
shipbuilding, makes it difficult for them to come into
any Building amalgamation.

Certain smaller fusions may make the way smoother
for an Industrial Union. All the rival sets of Unions
catering for the same crafts (Carpenters, Plumbers,
Painters, Bricklayers, Slaters, etc.) could at once
be amalgamated ; but, when this had been done,
there would remain about half a dozen strong national
crafts Unions with a fairly wide basis of membership,
and several General Labour Unions. The more
difficult problem is to secure effective concerted action
among these independent units.

The Building industry is now organised in 67
Unions, local and national, and 13 local Federations.
Working for a local market and for the most part
on discontinuous jobs, labour in the Building trades
must be organised to some extent on a local basis.
The locality is the unit which has to be paralysed ;
and as the jobs are discontinuous, action has to be
taken rapidly. The present state of organisation is
exactly the reverse : the national Unions are strongly

1 Except perhaps fusions of rival sectional Unions, e.g.
rival Painters’, Carpenters’, etc., Unions.

TRADE UNION GOVERNMENT

267

entrenched, and act throughout independently, for
their own hand ; the local Federations are weak,
and cannot move without the sanction of the national
Unions. All the funds are in the hands of the Unions,
and the Federations have to raise all money by means
of special subscriptions ; no encouragement is given
by the Unions to their branches to join the local
Federations, nor are the Federation dues paid out
of the Union funds. Were this all, the position
would be bad enough ; but there is worse to come.
Success depends, in the Building industry, on the
complete paralysing of the ‘ job ' or the locality ; all
the sections must act together, and there must be
some means of controlling all possible blacklegs.
But, in the first place, the immense number of non-
unionists in the industry generally makes it quite
impossible to paralyse a district, and even where non¬
unionism is comparatively unimportant, the separate
Unions generally pull in different directions. Not
onty do the sections fall out among themselves locally :
far more disastrous is the fact that often half a dozen
distinct policies are being dictated to them by as many
distinct Head Offices. The Unions have different
methods of negotiation ; they tie themselves up with
sectional agreements expiring at different dates,
and effective common action becomes altogether im¬
possible. Sometimes, some of the most important
sections remain outside the local building Federation,
and conclude on their own agreements that are
disastrous to the other sections. Moreover, the
National Conciliation Board, which includes most of
the principal Unions, is probably the most reactionary
Labour body in existence. Instead of direct negotia¬
tions between a solid body of employers and a solid
body of masters, it works by a system of cross-voting.

268

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

Often, enough of the workers’ representatives seem to
vote with the employers to allow of the carrying of
perfectly preposterous resolutions. In this case, at
least, conciliation has served only to ‘ dish ’ the
workers.

Even apart from this difficulty, the local Federations
are now hampered at every turn. Their objects are
to settle questions of demarcation and to secure
united action ; but it is far from surprising that they
have failed in both. The presence of overlapping
Unions, and still more the failure of the old craft
Unions to open their ranks when old processes gave
way to new, have made the demarcation question
insoluble. No attempt can be made to solve it until
all the Unions are working together in friendly
co-operation, and a real effort is made to bring in
the unorganised. Demarcation disputes are nowhere
so bitter as in the Building industry.

In securing united action, the Federations encoun¬
tered a further difficulty. Rapid action, we have seen,
is always essential to success ; but the first requisite,
if rapid action is to be possible, is the concentration
of power in the hands of a single authority. The
problem is in the case not merely that of local as
against central control ; it arises because the central
authority is itself a many-headed monster, or worse.
In each Union, the branch has to obtain the sanction
of its national Executive before a strike can be
declared ; this means that every strike requires the
permission of a number of isolated and independent
national Executives, which there is no attempt to
co-ordinate. As these meet at different times, the
delay involved often runs into six weeks, and by
that time it is generally too late to act. Very often

TRADE UNION GOVERNMENT 269

the cause of dispute is particular, and applies only
to a single job ; but by the time the whole of the
workers can come out, the job is finished. If the
local Federation takes on itself the responsibility of
calling out the workers without the sanction of the
Unions, it is in the unfortunate position of having
no funds, and of being unable to collect any. A
Federation cannot collect funds except through the
branches composing it ; and these are, as a rule,
unwilling to pay twice over— to the national Union
and to the local Federation. It is, under such
conditions, almost impossible to raise special levies
for the support of strikes.

It is therefore absolutely essential to create a single
authority with the power to sanction strikes and
grant strike pay. Clearly, such an authority can
be only a real Industrial Union. We are sometimes
told that national solidarity in the Building industry
has failed already ; but the old Federation, which
died of its own futility little more than a year ago,
was a Federation of local Federations. It linked up,
not the strong national Unions, which, by their isola¬
tion, now prevent united action, but the weak local
Federations, which had themselves no power to
delegate to it. Naturally, it reflected their weakness,
and, whereas they drag out a miserable existence,
died outright. The experiment of a real Building
Trades’ Federation has never been tried ; but it would
be hardly less unlikely to succeed. It would have to
link up national Unions instead of local Federations,
and it would have to surrender complete control of
stoppages to the federal executive. In short, it could
only be made effective if the Unions sacrificed to it
the whole of their power— if, that is, it became an
amalgamation in everything but name. This, clearly,

270

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

is not the kind of body proposed by those who advo¬
cate federation in the building industry ; they want
a powerless body, whose sole use will be to scotch
schemes of amalgamation. Building federation is
dead and damned.

What is wanted is not so much local control of
stoppages as local initiative and local organisation.
Stoppages will nearly always be local ; but, with strong
national Unions in the field, the fighting funds will
clearly be centralised. It is essential that the locality
should be able to call easily upon the national fund,
but it is also necessary to leave the ultimate control
in the hands of a national authority. A non-sectional
central fund is, undoubtedly, an impossibility, until a
real Industrial Union is created by fusion of existing
Unions. But failure will continue till there is one
central authority to sanction strikes, and so secure the
rapid action which, in this industry, is essential to
success.

It will have become clear from these instances that
the problem of control differs very much from industry
to industry in accordance both with the natural char¬
acter of the industry itself, and with the structure
of the organisations covering it. Thus on the Rail¬
ways there is, if we set aside the Locomotive Engi¬
neers and Firemen and the Railway Clerks, a form of
organisation at any rate approximating to Industrial
Unionism. There is one strong Union, covering most
of the industry. This means that central control is
very easy to realise, if it is necessary ; and as Railway
management is, in addition, that of a highly centralised
monopoly, the industry has always to be prepared to
act as a whole against united employers. Nationalisa-

TRADE UNION GOVERNMENT

271

tion would, of course, be the completion of this central¬
isation on the employers’ side, and would involve a
corresponding tightening-up of the organisation on the
side of the men.

In Building, on the other hand, we have an industry
catering for a local market, at present organised by
means of national craft Unions. Local solidarity is
the first need, and the problem to be faced is therefore
that of getting all the workers in a locality organised.
Here the locality will nearly always be the unit of
action, and here, if anywhere, we should expect to
find that local autonomy had its legitimate sphere ;
but we saw that it is absolutely necessary, where
central funds have to be drawn upon, to have central
control, and we therefore recommended, along with
local action, central sanction for all stoppages. The
question of closing strikes in the Building industry
is more difficult. It is just this sort of strike that is
apt to linger on long after all chance of victory has
gone, and it is hard to say how far the local organisa¬
tions could be trusted to keep their heads. Probably
the solution lies in the fixing of a time limit ; after a
certain number of weeks have elapsed, the national
authority should have power, after consulting the
local organisation, to discontinue strike pay, though
not actually to close the strike.

In the last chapter, we discussed the method of
Federation, as opposed to Amalgamation, as the im¬
mediate solution of pressing problems in the Transport
and Shipbuilding industries. We have now had a
very similar discussion in the case of Building. We
should, then, by now be in a position to make some
estimate of the value of Federation as a method, and,
in especial, to address ourselves to the particular
problems of control which it presents.

272

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

Federation may be defined, roughly, as the linking
up of independent Unions for specific purposes, usually
for concerted action in trade disputes. We saw in the
last chapter that, as a rule, the best test of the real
efficacy of a Federation is the presence or absence of a
central fighting fund. The absence of such a fund
inevitably means that the Federation has no means
of controlling the bodies affiliated to it, and is therefore
unable to take effective action on any controversial
matter. In the case of the Transport workers, we saw
good reason to believe that the Federation could only
be made effective by the strengthening of its financial
basis. Now, it is clear that a strong central fund in¬
volves strong central control ; federal funds cannot be
left at the call of any affiliated organisation, unless the
whole has the power of checking and regulating such
calls. The government of Federations therefore presents
problems of its own ; for it is clearfy impossible to
persuade independent Unions to surrender to a Federa¬
tion the same powers as branches customarily surrender
to the central organisation of their Union. The prob¬
lem, however, is in the main the same as that which an
industrial or ‘ greater ’ Union has to face ; difficulties
of adjustment can only be got over by the provision of
an adequate system of representative government.
Clearly, the governing body of the Federation must in
all cases consist of delegates from the affiliated Unions
in proportion to their membership ; and where the
Union contains several different crafts or sections, its
delegates should be elected on a sectional basis.
Provision should also be made, wherever possible,
for the representation, on the federal Executive, of
local differences. In practice, however, it will
often be found impossible to get a federal Execu¬
tive representing differences adequately, and this

TRADE UNION GOVERNMENT

2 73

will be most the case where such representation is
most essential. It is precisely in Federations of very
wide scope, covering an enormous area, that rapid
action, in respect of a particular section or locality, is
often most necessary. It will, however, be impossible in
such cases to summon a general meeting of the various
delegates in time to deal with the point promptly.

This is one of the greatest difficulties Federations
have to face, as it means either a fatal sacrifice of
rapidity in action, or else the handing over of practi¬
cally all the control to a small and probably mis¬
represent ative executive committee. The Federation,
if it is to act promptly, has to create an Executive
smaller than its occasional representative Delegate
Meeting ; but such an Executive can hardly command
the obedience of the Unions in anything like the same
degree. This may well be fatal ; for the need cannot
be met by any system of occasional conferences.
Particular questions are constantly needing rapid
solution. In short, as a rule, a Federation can only
do its work effectively by becoming virtually an
amalgamation ; but when it has gone so far, amalga¬
mation is both an economy and an additional source
of strength. Taken as a whole, Federation within an
industry is an obsolete method, destined to be more
or less rapidly supplanted by complete Industrial
Unionism, which alone is suitable to modern industrial
conditions.

Federation, no doubt, will continue for some time
to be the method of securing concerted action in
a good many industries — Cotton being the most
obvious instance. In most cases, however, it will
tend to approximate more and more to amalgama¬
tion — to be, in fact, something very like amalgamation
for fighting purposes. As industry becomes more
18

274

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

centralised, and as the employers federate more and
more closely, Federations of Trade Unions must get
more and more power in the control of strikes. Along
with this increased control will go the development of
stronger central funds ; and this must be accompanied
by a change in the methods of government, and in
the composition of federal Executives. Many of the
Federations mentioned in the Board of Trade In¬
dustrial Directory exist only on paper, or at most con¬
sist, for all practical purposes, merely of a Secretary.
If they are to do useful work, this must be changed.
The day of loose federation, like the day of pure local
autonomy, is past ; centralisation is the first need in
nearly all industries, if strikes are to be brought to a
successful conclusion.

Syndicalism, we have seen, is connected, in the
minds of many of its supporters, with the demand for
more local autonomy. This is especially the case
with those Syndicalists who are under the influence of
Anarchist-Communism, and, to a less extent, with all
those who have caught the fever from France. In¬
dustrial Unionists, on the other hand, are for the most
part in favour of centralisation accompanied by
democratic control ; and the movement towards the
Greater Unionism in this country has now definitely
abandoned the hopeless attitude of those who favour
local autonomy, and come to realise that central control
alone can meet the needs of modern industrial warfare.

This is seen in its most interesting form in the famous
pamphlet issued by a section of the South Wales
Miners. The Miners Next Step — the Bible of Syndi¬
calism in South Wales — is a vigorous plea for more
complete centralisation. ‘ The Industrial Democracy
League’,1 founded among others by the authors of
1 It has just issued a monthly magazine, Solidarity.

TRADE UNION GOVERNMENT

275

the pamphlet, exists to put its principles into practice,
to secure centralisation over the whole coalfield of
South Wales, accompanied by real democratic control.
The proposals outlined in The Miners Next Step fall,
therefore, under two main heads. They show conclu¬
sively that the local strike, supported largely out of local
funds, and declared by the will of the locality, fails in
an overwhelming majority of cases. They instance
the famous Combine strike of 1910-11 and the Aber-
dare strike. It is quite clear that, save in a very few
cases, and those purely defensive, there is very little
hope of a strike succeeding unless it has behind it the
united force of the district, in this case South Wales
as a whole. Centralisation of fighting policy, they
make quite evident, is the first essential. This, how¬
ever, is only one side of their proposals. Almost as
much as they fear ‘ parochialism ’, they fear ‘ official¬
dom ’. They are confident that the carrying out of
their policy of centralisation would result, were the
government of the Federation to remain as it is now, in
bureaucracy of the worst sort. Not only would the
policy pursued be peaceful instead of militant ; the
rank and file would get still more out of touch with
the leaders. The second part of the pamphlet there¬
fore consists of a fierce attack on leadership as a whole :
the authors desire, not to change their leaders, but to
get rid of the whole idea of leadership. For the present
bureaucratic methods, in which the officials always
usurp the legislative power that should solely belong
to the workers, they propose to substitute control by
a monthly delegate meeting representing the coal¬
field as a whole. The delegates are to be elected by the
Lodges, and are to form the sole legislative body.
They are to pass all price-lists, and to lay down all
general conditions of work throughout the coal-field ;

276

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

the officials are only to apply the principles so deter
mined, and are to have, in the strictest sense, merely
executive functions. Thus the officials will be de¬
prived of all chance of misrepresenting the rank and
file ; and the delegates, being specially instructed by
the Lodges on all points, will be in close touch with the
feeling of those whom they represent.

This scheme seems to be open to the objection that
its system of democratic control is really applicable
only in cases where a really broad and general issue
is involved, and a clear mandate can therefore be
secured from the rank and file. Nothing is more
clearly established than that large conferences are
highly unlikely to form good legislative bodies, or to
deal effectively with questions of detail. The meet¬
ing may lay down general principles ; but, in details,
all the power will be in the hands of the officials who
apply them. Even though the members of the meeting
would be delegates and not representatives, though they
would be definitely instructed by the Lodges how to
vote, it would be found that the important business
of the coal-field could not be transacted by a periodical
general meeting ; the officials would act on their own
responsibilty, and the delegate meeting would preserve
only the power of veto. This does not mean that
the last stage of the organisation would be worse than
the first : power would have passed from the District
officials to the centre, and to this extent it would be
easier for the rank and file to criticise ; but the
administrative power would inevitably still rest with
the officials and the Executive.

An interesting corroboration of this view is to be
found in the existing organisation of the South Wales
Miners’ Federation. The constitution now provides
for the placing of ultimate sovereignty in the hands

TRADE UNION GOVERNMENT

277

of a Delegate Meeting representing the Lodges. This
meeting is in effective control of general wages move¬
ments and negotiations ; but in all detailed matters the
officials and the Executive are very powerful. Greater
centralisation has been secured, and the influence of
the Miners’ Agent over his own District lessened.

This change is the result of a conflict between three
rival parties among the Miners. The old official
element stood for the retention of the former system
of divided control, in which the Lodge and the
District had both a degree of autonomy. This was
then found to work out, in practice, as the domination
of the official element, local and central. It gave both
the central officials and the Miners’ Agents consider¬
able power, and left very little to the rank and file.
At the other extreme stood the Syndicalists or ‘ In¬
dustrial Democrats,’ advocating the system we have
just examined. Their reforms involved the abolition
of the ' Districts,’ and the degradation of the Miners’
Agents to a subordinate position. We have seen
how their scheme was adopted in some of its leading
features, especially centralisation, though it was
bitterly opposed by the District officials, whose
authority it threatened. The agitation, however,
some time ago got far enough to be referred, by general
vote of the coal-field, to a committee with orders
to draw up a definite scheme ; on this committee the
official element obtained a majority, and the draft
scheme they put forward was decisively rejected.
This was the opportunity of the third party, which
favoured centralisation, but not the complete sub¬
ordination of the official element, by which the
Syndicalists wished it to be accompanied. The
scheme of centralisation and control by Delegate
Meeting has already proved itself highly successful,

278

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

and has meant a great gain in power to the rank and
hie of the South Wales Miners.

This constitution is indeed a great improvement
on the old and should lead to a reconstruction of the
Executive. The Executive of the centralised South
Wales Miners’ Federation should become a body repre¬
sentative of both local and sectional interests. Its
members should be elected in electoral districts by
various sections of workers. Including all workers in
or about Mines, the reformed Miners’ Federation
would have to pay far more attention to sectional differ¬
ences, and an Executive elected roughly on the same
principles as that of the Railwaymen would exercise
a real check on officials, who should, of course, not
be eligible to sit on it. This check would be made
even more effective by the local character of the
industry, and, in fact, centralisation is working less
‘ bureaucratically ’ on these lines than it might on
those laid down in The Miners Next Step A

We have seen already, in the case of the Amalga¬
mated Society of Engineers, how important it is
that a great national Union should get all sorts of
interests represented on its Executive. Abstract
democracy — the bare principle of ‘ one man, one
vote ’, with its absolute ignoring of differences and
shades of value, is a thing of the past ; instead of it,
we are evolving a new and more real democracy which
takes differences into account. It is not aristocratic ;
for it seeks to represent all differences and interests
fairly : it is, in fact, the only true and philosophic
democracy. Any great Union that neglects this in
working out its system of representative government
will fail : it will be driven to centralise ; but its central¬
isation will be a failure, because it will be not demo¬
cratic, but bureaucratic.

1 Above this Executive would still be the Delegate Meeting
elected by Lodges, with a final power of veto

TRADE UNION GOVERNMENT

279

The first great problem, then, in Trade Union
control is the provision of better systems of representa¬
tive government. Growing to greatness, in many
cases, from small beginnings, the Unions have never
paused to set their house in order, or to refurnish
with later ideas. Trade Union management is still,
in many Unions, decidedly early Victorian, and it
is one of the most hopeful signs of the industrial
awakening that, in the new schemes that are being
formulated, the problem of government is for the
first time really being faced. The Railwaymen, for
instance, have really endeavoured, with a great
measure of success, to get a system of government
and control capable of dealing with the greater issues
of modern Trade Unionism.

It will be well, before we leave this question of
centralisation and government, to corroborate some
of the arguments we have advanced in favour of central
control by reference to an interview with Mr. W. A.
Appleton, Secretary of the General Federation of
Trade Unions, which appeared in the Daily Herald 1
He holds that rank-and-file control of strikes merely
plays the employers’ game ; that often the masters,
knowing that an organised movement is coming
soon, deliberately goad the workers into striking at
the wrong time, and so beat them. “ Fully half,” he
says, “ of what are termed spontaneous strikes are
undertaken at times and under circumstances favour¬
able to the employers.” “ I wish,” he goes on, “ to
dissociate myself entirely from the demand for full
rank-and-file control of strikes. I am as keen as
any man on defending the right of the worker to
strike at a moment’s notice against conditions he finds
intolerable, but I hold that the direction of strike
1 February 12, 1913.

28o

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

movements must be left to the duly elected officials
of the Unions. ... I am opposed to indiscriminate
striking, not in the interests of the officials, but in
the interests of the rank and file themselves.” Mr.
Appleton goes on to point out how little the worker
knows of the chances of success, of the condition of
his own and the employers’ organisation, of the state
of the market, or of the chances of a boom or a fall.
Success in strikes depends on a correct knowledge
of these things, and it is to provide this knowledge
that the expert official is required.

People talk so lightly about strikes, Mr. Appleton
holds, only because they do not understand what
strikes mean. The object of effective organisation
is to secure the results without the need for a strike.
A trial of strength need not come to the point of a
stoppage. Sporadic striking is fatal to solidarity ; like
the Germans, we must ‘ organise ’. The movement as
a whole must be under expert direction, and strikes,
be they large or small, must be centrally controlled.

Such a testimony from a man like Mr. Appleton,
who in connection with the General Federation,
has had more experience of the ‘ spontaneous ’ or
' engineered ’ strike than any other Union leader,
cannot be disregarded. Mr. Appleton has shown
himself all along more alive than any man to the
new situations that have arisen in the Trade Union
world. He seems to have been alone in realising
the proper attitude for the Unions to adopt towards
the Insurance Act ; 1 for by doing his best to make
the General Federation the common Insurance
society of the whole Trade Union movement he gave
the Unions their chance really to get something
out of the Act — and they rejected it. His opinion
on any labour question deserves the most careful
1 That is, when once they determined to accept it.

TRADE UNION GOVERNMENT

281

attention : on the question of control over strikes
it is too strong testimony to be rejected.

Mr. Philip Snowden, in his recent book The Living
Wage, maintains that nowadays no strikes have any
chance of succeeding except small ones, and that
these can succeed only when they have public opinion
behind them. We are not now concerned with the
clear fallacy of this view ; we have now only to point
out that, whatever the best area for strikes may be,
central control and central funds are essential. It
is quite certain that the small strike has been crippled
more than the large by the lack of such funds, and
that the result of centralisation will be ‘ better times ’
for the small strike, and greater power for isolated
sections of workers.

Along with the consolidation of Trade Union forces,
the centralisation of funds and control, and the
development of new forms of representative govern¬
ment must go a change in policy on the part of many
of the great Unions. With centralisation, the day
of agreements is passing away, or, at least, agreements
are being so modified in form as to differ wholly from
the agreements with which the events of the last
century have made us familiar. In particular, there
are two classes of agreements which the realisation
of industrial solidarity will sweep entirely away.
There must be no more ‘ craft ’ agreements ; the
industry or the great 1 occupational ’ Union must
negotiate as a whole, on behalf of all its members.
In the past, the ' craft ’ agreement and ‘ craft ’
conciliation have been the employer’s best weapons
against the worker ; he has used them unmercifully
to set section against section, and, by arranging that
sectional agreements shall end at different times,
has often succeeded in making concerted action

282

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

impossible. This difficulty will disappear when
industrial solidarity is realised. Workers and masters
will stand solidly face to face ; and, if an agreement
is arrived at, it will be an agreement of all with all.

Secondly, long ‘ time ’ agreements must go. In
the past, the workers have continually bound them¬
selves down by a long agreement just before a trade
boom, and have therefore been unable to take
advantage of the period of prosperity. Just when
the agreement has expired, the trade boom has ended,
and the workers have been compelled either to
continue on the old terms or to strike just when a
stoppage suited the employer best. As the Unions
increase their power, it is probable that the ‘ time ’
agreement will tend to disappear : at any rate, it
will seldom exceed a year in duration. There is
much to be said for the suggestion that all agreements
should expire on May i — Labour Day. But the
ultimate settlement of this question is a matter for
the particular Unions concerned ; it cannot be decided
off-hand on general principles

The last of the great questions of control now
confronting the Trade Union movement is part of
the general adaptation of administration to function.
A comparison of the 1876 Trade Union Act with the
rules of any great modern Union will at once show to
what an extent the Unions, in their natural develop¬
ment, have taken on new functions unthought
of when Parliament yielded to pressure, and gave
them their charter.1 Unfortunately, along with this
development of function, there has been no corre¬
sponding evolution of their machinery of government.

1 The whole legal question raised by the Osborne Judgment
turned on this point. See Professor W. M. Geldart’s admirable
pamphlet, The Osborne Judgment and After.

TRADE UNION GOVERNMENT

283

In most cases, they are trying to do all the work
with a constitution that was meant only to do one
part of it. Especially, from the advent of the Labour
Party, there has been a lamentable tendency to elect
Union officials to Parliament, and to let them try to
fill both jobs at once. Inevitably, the efficiency of
the work done has suffered in both cases. ‘ Twicers ’
have been bad Union officials and worse Parliamen¬
tarians. With the passing of the Insurance Act,
the ‘ twicer ’ has, too often, become a ‘ thricer ’.
Swamped beneath the mass of conflicting duties, the
personnel of Trade Union offices has had no time to
think ; it is the fault, not of the officials, but of the
system, that matters have been allowed to drift. This
hopeless attempt to muddle through will go on, until
the Unions address themselves to the task, and set
their organisation right. The ‘ twicer ’ must go, and
adequate staffs must be maintained, if the Unions are
to do really effective work

Not only must the duplication of jobs be abolished ;
the office organisation of most of the Unions requires
drastic reform. At present, all sorts of functions are
lumped together anyhow ; the Trade Union office is
a centre for all sorts of work, and no attempt is made to
systematise or to divide. To some Unions this does
not apply, and, in particular, the N.U.R. has taken
advantage of its opportunity to perfect a system of
administrative devolution already begun by the
A.S.R.S. 1 The General Secretary of the N.U.R. has
under him four Assistant Secretaries, each of whom
has under his care a particular part of the Union’s
activities. Finance, legal matters, trade movements
and organisation are now separate departments, and

1 The Steel Smelters, too, have now an admirable system of
office organisation.

284

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

the increased efficiency of the administration is already
making itself felt.

This question of devolution by function has a further
aspect. Not only are Trade Union officials often
members of Parliament : the general business of the
Unions is hopelessly mixed up with their political
activities. Fortunately, the result of the 1913 Trade
Union Act will be to necessitate administrative separa¬
tion, and probably in the end to make the political
fund really voluntary. The pig-headedness of the
English bench may well turn out to have been a
blessing in disguise.

Further, amalgamation will, in most cases, compel
the Unions to make a clear separation between ‘ trade ’
and ‘ benefit ’ funds. This, again, will be an unmixed
advantage. The use of ‘ trade 5 money for ‘ benefit ’
purposes is an abuse which requires to be swept away,
if the Unions are to become real lighting forces.

On the whole, then, the Greater Unionism will turn
out to be a movement not only in the direction of
consolidation of forces. It will also force the Unions
to develop new systems of representative government,
and to adopt administrative devolution such as we
see beginning, slowly but certainly, in Government
departments. It will lead not only to united action,
but also to efficient management, and will compel the
Unions to bring themselves up to date, and to abandon
the conservatism which, in management no less than
in structure, has too long prevented them from realising
to the full their common interest in face of the common
enemy, and, equally, from fitting themselves for the
new functions in industry which they are already
being called upon to perform.

CHAPTER IX

SOCIAL PEACE AND SOCIAL WAR— CONCILIATION
AND ARBITRATION

“ The most wretched slavery they call peace.” — Tacitus.

In these ‘ pacifist ’ days, the word ' war ’ has an ugly
sound. 1 ‘ Peace on the other hand, sounds sweetly
on a modern ear : * peace ‘ love ’ and ‘ brotherhood ’
are surely what we are all out to realise. How nice
then to realise them here and now ! Social peace !
A country without strikes ! Co-partnership and co¬
operation of worker and employer ! How delightful,
and how soothing to the troubled social conscience !

When all this is hypocrisy, it is bad enough ; when
it is mere stupidity, it is even worse. There are, un¬
fortunately, people who really believe in social peace
from disinterested motives, and are earnestly engaged
in its furtherance. They have been deceived by the
nonsensical or hypocritical talk of those who pretend
that “the interests of Capital and Labour are identical’’,
and that all that is needed is “ a better understanding
of economic truths on both sides ” — especially on the
side of Labour. Let it be understood once for all
that the interests of Capital and Labour are diametri¬
cally opposed, and that although it may be necessary
for Labour sometimes to acquiesce in ‘ social peace ’,
such peace is only the lull before the storm.

Proposals for conciliation, arbitration, State interfer-

1 1913-

285

286

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

ence in Labour disputes and the like, are almost always
made in the name of ‘ social peace Strikes affect
the public as well as the masters and workers directly
concerned ; they affect other masters and, still more
nearly, other workers. There is on this account
a prima facie case in favour of all attempts to put an
end to strikes and lock-outs, and this prima facie case
is run for all it is worth by the capitalist press, when¬
ever a big strike occurs. Before, however, we need
accept any argument based on this line of reasoning,
on the inconvenience caused to the public, the ‘ con¬
sumer ’, by industrial disputes, there are certain
general considerations we may take into account.
The employer runs his business for a profit : therefore
it is to the employer’s advantage to keep his business
going, that is, to avoid strikes. It may be answered
that the worker lives by selling his labour, and that it
must be to his advantage always to find a buyer ; but
the crucial difference between them is that Capital
exploits while Labour is exploited. If both started
fair, they would have an equal interest in securing
smooth running and avoiding unnecessary friction ;
but as it is, one starts with everything, and the other
with nothing. The worker has gradually to gain, by
his own efforts, the position in which he should, in
fairness, have been all along. The worker is on the
offensive ; the capitalist is only trying to keep his
place, though he seems, from the rise in profits and
the fall in real wages, to be doing rather more than that
just at present. The continuance of the status quo is,
then, the capitalist’s constant object, and it follows
that a continued state of ‘social peace’ is just what
suits him most, and the worker least. ‘ Social peace ’
is a sham and a trick ; how far ‘ social truces ’ may be
necessary in the social war we shall see later on.

SOCIAL PEACE AND SOCIAL WAR 287

What is here being attacked is not the habit of
negotiation between the Unions and the employers,
but the attempt to represent the success of this
negotiation as implying that the interests of both
parties are the same. It proves, at most, only the
superiority of a disciplined campaign over guerilla
warfare. As we have seen, industrial diplomacy, the
use of collective bargaining, may and usually does
amount merely to a trial of strength, or of estimated
strength, between the parties concerned. The avoid¬
ance of conflict by such means may be highly desirable,
whereas the abandonment of the method of collective
bargaining involved in arbitration and in a good deal
of conciliation is certainly not so.

In asking, then, whether either conciliation or arbitra¬
tion is desirable at all, we shall be asking not whether
the Labour movement can be drugged into accepting
a ' social peace ’ based on the present system, but
whether the recognition of the class-struggle implies
war to the death without truce or negotiation.
We shall find that, though there is a real class-war,
the whole social system does not rest solely upon it,
and that, provided the Labour movement keeps its
ultimate revolutionary aim clearly in sight, it will get
on far better with discipline than without it — far
better by negotiating as well as striking than by
striking alone. Conciliation, backed by the threat of a
strike, has a very useful function ; conciliation that
is disguised arbitration is Capital’s latest sleeping-
draught for Labour. The arguments for truceless
war are very largely arguments really against com¬
pulsory arbitration, sectional and long agreements,
and veiled arbitration. Get rid of all these, and the
residuum of pure negotiation is a useful method of
saving strike pay and suffering.

288

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

Industrial peace, then, must not be permanent.
There is a real class-antagonism, a quarrel that can
only be adjusted by the overthrow of capitalist society.
The fact that strikes inconvenience the public and
are ' brutal ’ in their effects is an argument, not for
prohibiting strikes, but for altering the social system.
A public that acquiesces in exploitation has no rights
against workers who are up in arms against it : the
State has no right to intervene as an impartial person.
The State should represent the moral sense of the
community, and for the moral sense of the community
to be ‘ impartial ’ in the great war between justice and
injustice is for it to forfeit its right as a community.
Compulsory interference by the State involves, as
we shall see, a moral standard ; the State has only
the right to interfere, not selfishly, as the ‘ organised
consumers but morally, as a social regenerator. At
present, it interferes, as a rule, merely to stop the
strike at any cost ; its motto is “ anything for peace
and quietness”. But it has no right to peace till it
has secured all men their rights — and from the State
of to-day, it is more than a little fantastic to expect that.

The whole attitude of the Government, of Sir
George Askwith, and of the Industrial Council, as well
as all the squealing of the private citizen, assumes
that the sole object is to stop strikes ; it would be
truer to say that the aim of every right-minded person
should be to stimulate and direct them. This attitude
is presumably inevitable on the part of a Government
engaged in passing legislation to which the people
is either hostle or indifferent ; but it is an abandon¬
ment of the aspirations of true statesmen, and a
surrender of all right. ‘ Compulsory ’ arbitration is
an appeal to naked coercion ; and coercion is only
justifiable in a real democracy.

SOCIAL PEACE AND SOCIAL WAR 289

The Government, admittedly, has no conscience ;
but the public has one of a sort. The public’s chief
use for its conscience is to send it to sleep ; but a very
rude shock will sometimes wake it up. At least a
strong minority is alive to some of the worst evils of
sweating ; and industrial war is made unsafe for
the employer in this country, because he does not
quite dare, even with the State at his back, to make
a habit of " shooting them down ’’A If he feels really
in peril, he is quite likely to try it on ; but, at present,
the remedy looks more dangerous than the disease.

It is, then, really recognised on both sides that the
normal condition of the world of industry is one of
suppressed war. Open war all the time, however,
does not suit either side. The workers’ organisations
are often not strong enough to stand frequent con¬
flicts, and they fear to provoke a vindictive and ill-
informed public by inconveniencing it too much ; the
employers, on the other hand, want peace in times
of prosperity, in order to reap their profits ; and, in
times of depression, dare not proceed to the last
extremity for fear of waking up the national conscience
— which, after all, might turn out to exist.

On the side of the workers, there is a further con¬
sideration that makes continual open warfare im¬
possible. The Trade Unions have to take men as
they find them, and revolutionary methods only
succeed, for long, with revolutionary people. In
England, the rebel is a very rare phenomenon. Trade
Unionists, as a whole, have very little revolutionary
spirit. They will bear the slaughter-house meekly,

1 Since these words were written, events in Dublin and
Cornwall have a little shaken my faith ; but if the workers
are alive, these very events will give them a chance to make
a repetition impossible.

*9

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

290

provided the market does not demand the slaughter
of too many at once ; they will lie down gladly in
their thousands in the green pastures of Liberalism
and Reform. Meanwhile, profits will go up, and real
wages will fall. Capitalism has not yet to die in its
last ditch.

The various proposals for the regulation of trade
disputes which fall under the head of Conciliation
and Arbitration range from something like complete
statutory determination of wages to such purely per¬
missive measures as the Conciliation Act of 1896.
Compulsory Arbitration, Compulsory Conciliation,
universal Trade or Wages Boards, permissive Arbitra¬
tion and Conciliation, are all methods of interference
aiming either at the fixing of the standard of life or at
the prevention of industrial warfare. The words Con¬
ciliation and Arbitration, as we saw in Chapter II., are
often very loosely used, and this looseness may make
it easier for a proposal to get passed into law without
the workers having realised its true significance. It
is absolutely essential that the possibilities should
be understood, and that the Unions should get their
attitude clear. At present, as the general debate
at the 1912 Trade Union Congress1 revealed, they
have the haziest ideas of what the whole subject
implies. Generally speaking, there is a vague objec¬
tion to compulsory arbitration ; but the objection
seems to be so much a matter of words that it is
very doubtful if such a proposal would not be accepted,
were it only called something else. Certainly very
few even of the leaders realise the nature of all the
divergent schemes that are now being proposed, or
are at all in a position to pass judgment upon them.

Compulsory arbitration involves the reference of

1 See Report of the Trade Union Congress, 1912, pp. 191-9.

SOCIAL PEACE AND SOCIAL WAR 291

all disputes between employer and employed, in the
first or the last resort, to some ‘ impartial ’ tribunal
with power to decide one way or the other. It pro¬
hibits strikes and lock-outs, and substitutes full
inquiry into the circumstances ; that is to say, it
takes the case out of the hands of the parties, and
puts it in those of a representative of the community.
This is supposed to save the public inconvenience,
while securing justice for the disputants.

The best known instance of the actual working of
Compulsory Arbitration is, of course, New Zealand,
where, though the precise terms of the law are con¬
tinually being altered, a system uniform in the main
has been in operation since 1894. A consolidating
Act was passed in 1908, and this was again amended
in 1910 and 1911. The peculiarity of the system is
that it is open only to registered Associations of
employers and workers (at least three employers or
at least fifteen workers). It is thus intended to
stimulate organisation, but in effect the result of this
provision is apt to be that the Act, while remaining
voluntary in form, becomes really compulsory. It is
always open to workers to declare a strike, provided
their Union is not registered, and provided no award
applies to them ; but it is so easy to form a rival
Union of fifteen persons which can get an award
legally binding on the whole trade that this safeguard
is really illusory. The system is, in fact, generally
recognised as being equivalent to compulsory arbitra¬
tion, and even the recent withdrawal of their registra¬
tion by quite a number of the Unions will probably
not mean for long the right to strike. Strikes occur
in spite of the Act ; but this is mainly because of the
difficulty found in collecting the statutory fines from
defaulters.

292

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

According to the 1908 Act, which we may take
here as representing the system in its developed form,
recourse must always, except in the case of State
Railwaymen, be had in the first instance to a specially
appointed Council of Conciliation, representing the
two sides, with an ‘ impartial ’ Chairman. Failing
a settlement, the dispute at the end of one month
may, and at the end of two must, be referred to the
central Court of Arbitration, an ‘ impartial ’ body,
standing for the public, which decides absolutely.
The penal clauses for breach of an award or for attempts
to bring about a strike or lock-out tend, as in New
South Wales, to become more stringent. In the
year 1909-10 the Conciliation Councils dealt with
102 disputes, of which they wholly settled 67. In
23 a partial settlement was reached, and only out¬
standing questions were referred to the Arbitration
Court, to which 12 further cases were referred
wholly.1

Broadly, there is no doubt as to the result of the
Act in New Zealand, and in New South Wales and
Western Australia, which have Acts largely modelled
on that of New Zealand. At first, wages rose con¬
siderably in many cases, especialfy in sweated trades,
where they were sometimes nearly doubled. Then
the employers, at first hostile to the Act, began to
see the advantages of industrial peace, while at the
same time the workers, who had at first welcomed it,
realised that they had got out of it nearly all there
was to be got, and became correspondingly dissatisfied.
The better paid workers especially ceased to get
rises, and began to cancel their registrations in order
to be able to strike. Industrial unrest began to

1 Memoranda relating to Strikes and Lock-outs, etc. [Cd. 6081]
Board of Trade, 1912.

SOCIAL PEACE AND SOCIAL WAR 293

spread, and since 1911 at any rate, New Zealand has
been very markedly a home of labour troubles. The
two hostile sections of the Labour movement, the
Federation of Labour, which has a militant industrial
policy, and the Trade and Labour Councils, which
are mild and political, have united against the Act,
and New Zealand has had stormy times. It is no
longer what Mr. Henry Demarest Lloyd called it in
1902, ‘ A Country without Strikes ’.

It is hard to say how far this change of front on
the part of Labour means the break-up of the system.
It will probably bring about a modification, but not
any drastic change ; for the whole method of legal
regulation of industrial matters is too deeply ingrained
in Australia to be rooted out, even were such a change
desirable. It is more likely that the system in New
Zealand will in time approximate more closely to
that of Victoria, which we still have to study shortly.
A tendency in this direction was observable in the
1908 Act, and it seems clear at least that the penal
element is breaking down, and that New Zealand is
approximating to the Minimum Wage legislation of
the Victorian Wages Boards. Compulsory legislation
against strikes is breaking down all over Australia ;
compulsory regulation of minimum conditions is
gaining ground. The New Zealand Act provides in
form for the fixing of an absolute rate, but in practice
the rates fixed are minima, though of course on this
system employees cannot strike for a rate higher
than the minimum.

Could it be shown that compulsory arbitration
had worked in New Zealand, it would not at all
follow that it could be applied to England. In New
Zealand, the total number of workers involved is
small, and coercion is comparatively easy to apply.

294

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

In dealing with the huge masses of men involved in
our great strikes, penal provisions would be impossible,
unless they were taken against the Unions ; and any
attempt to impose such provisions on the Unions
would meet with overwhelming resistance. Com¬
pulsory arbitration for England is not practical
politics 1 ; and the Trade Unions would be wiser, if
instead of spending all their time denouncing it, they
turned their attention to other and more dangerous
proposals for compulsory regulation of strikes. If
they think only of compulsory arbitration, and waste
all their energy on flogging that very dead horse,
the State will take advantage of their absent-minded¬
ness to tie them down with something far more
dangerous.

Clearly, the Government and the employers have*
realised this, and are turning their attention to such
schemes. In this connection, the recent deliberations
of the Industrial Council and, still more, the recent
visit of Sir George Askwith and Mr. Isaac Mitchell
to Canada are very significant. Canada has adopted,
not Compulsory Arbitration, but Compulsory Con¬
ciliation, which means, in effect, the compulsory post¬
ponement of a strike until the employers and the
public are ready for you. This system has spread
from Canada to South Africa and the U.S.A., and
there seems to be a tendency to adopt it in a good
many other countries. As a rule, it applies only to
those industries which are vaguely known as ' public
utilities ’.

Canada began in 1900 with a purely voluntary
Conciliation Act on the lines of our own Act of 1896.
This was followed by the Railway Labour Disputes
Act of 1903, which enforced Conciliation, but did
not prohibit strikes, being designed rather to settle
1 Or was not, until the war made it so.

SOCIAL PEACE AND SOCIAL WAR 295

strikes when they already existed. It was not till
1907, after a long Miners’ strike in the West, that
the present Industrial Disputes Investigation Act,
known as the ‘ Lemieux ’ Act, came into existence.
According to this Act, no strike or lock-out in the
Mining, Railway, Transport or ‘ public utility ’ services
can be declared till the dispute has been investigated
by a special Board of Conciliation and Investigation,
appointed by the Minister of Labour, and consisting
of one member recommended by the employers, one
recommended by the workers, and one either recom¬
mended by these two, or, in default, nominated by
the Minister. Thus, here again, the ‘ impartial ’
person comes in to hold the balance.

Until this Board has issued its report upon the
dispute, no strike or lock-out may take place in any
of the occupations that come within the scope of
the Act. When the Board has definitely failed to
effect a settlement, and has issued its report, a strike
or lock-out may be declared ; but reliance is placed
on the influence of public opinion in compelling the
parties to accept the ‘ impartial ’ award. Any strike
or lock-out in defiance of an award may be represented
as an unjust stoppage, and the Government relies
on public opinion to make such stoppages rare and
unfruitful. The prime object is to protect the public
from inconvenience, and at the same time to rouse
the public indignation against anyone who dares to
inconvenience it. Justice is supposed to be done to
both parties by Conciliation, and, accordingly, he
who refuses to accept an award gets no sympathy.

The fallacy in this view lies in the supposition that
a Conciliation Board can decide on grounds of justice.
If any Board attempted to do such a thing, there
would be an employers’ revolution on the spot.

296

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

Conciliators and Conciliation Boards of all sorts
cannot help being guided very largely by the economic
strength of the parties ; they plump for the settlement
that has most chance of being accepted, whether it
is just or unjust ; and the sort of settlement people
are ready to accept depends on their economic strength.
A measure directed merely to the securing of social
peace cannot secure social justice as a by-product.
This situation is, no doubt, to some extent modified
where an enterprise is nationally owned or controlled
— that is the main argument in favour of nationalisa¬
tion — but, in capitalistic industry, where the State
steps in merely as a third party, to settle the dispute,

‘ peace ’ will inevitably be the first consideration,
and justice a very bad second.

This would fit in well with our profound conviction
that, normally, what the worker gets is just what the
strength of his economic organisation entitles him to,1
were not the relative economic strength of the parties
itself modified by the Act. In the first place, the
striker, if he is the weaker party, is liable to be
deprived of the additional strength which he gains
from public support : in so far as he is weaker, public
opinion is liable to be turned against him, even if he
is in the right.2 Secondly, the delay which must
occur before a strike can be declared plays, in very
many cases, into the employers’ hands. No doubt,
this is less the case with ‘ public utility ’ services than
with other forms of industry ; but even here it may
often be fatal to success. The employers have every
opportunity to prepare for the struggle ; for the
workers, no preparation involving delay is necessary.

1 Except, of course, in sweated trades.

2 Again we must except sweated trades, in respect of which
a section of the public has developed a conscience.

SOCIAL PEACE AND SOCIAL WAR 297

Delay is never to the worker’s advantage ; often it
makes no difference to his chances ; but in many cases
it is fatal to all effective action.

Sir George Askwith answers this argument with the
assertion that, “ carried to its logical conclusion, the
claim to cease work at a moment’s notice, if acted upon,
would make business impossible, and in a civilised
community business must be made possible.” But,
in the first place, business should only be made possible
in so far as it allows a decent standard of life to the
worker ; where it fails to do this, it should be made
impossible as a means of enforcing redress. Secondly,
the claim to cease work at a moment’s notice never will
be “ carried to its logical conclusion,” in Sir George
Askwith’s sense. He is quite right in his assertion
that sudden stoppages are not, as a rule, a Trade
Union’s best way of securing advantages. But the
sudden stoppage may be a necessary weapon, without
being the normal weapon. It is, for instance, some¬
times clearly the best method in the docks, and, in
the case of the spontaneous ‘ discipline ’ strike, it is
absolutely essential. The right to strike suddenly
must not be taken away, though the right to strike
against an existing agreement may be.1 The two
questions are separate, and should not be confused.

We saw that, even if Compulsory Arbitration had
worked well in New Zealand, that would be no reason
for supposing it would work well here. Similarly, had
the Lemieux Act given universal satisfaction in Canada
— and it is far from doing so — we should have no right
to conclude that it ought to be adopted here. Canada
is a much simpler country industrially, and the number
of disputes to be dealt with is comparatively small. The
application of the Act to England would necessitate

1 The solution seems to lie in scrapping time agreements

298

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

enormous machinery, and, as with Compulsory Arbi¬
tration, it would be impossible to enforce the penal
clauses. Sir George Askwith, in the main, sees this,
and does not recommend the adoption of the Act as it
stands. He holds that the clauses prohibiting strikes
or lock-outs during the progress of an inquiry and im¬
posing penalties for infringement are not really of the
essence of the Act, and that its value does not lie in
them. “ The pith of the Act,” he writes, “ lies in per¬
mitting the parties and the public to obtain full know¬
ledge of the real cause of the dispute, and in causing
suggestions to be made as impartially as possible on the
basis of such knowledge for dealing with the existing
difficulties, whether a strike or lock-out has commenced or
not. This action on behalf of the public allows an
element of calm judgment to be introduced into the
dispute which at the time the parties themselves may
be unable to exercise.”

Turned into human English, this means that the
thing is to get the investigation, and not to prohibit
the stoppage. Sir George Askwith holds that had the
power of investigation existed without the power to
prohibit stoppages, the parties would have realised
the value of voluntary conciliation, and, in many
cases, the stoppage would never have taken place.
A good deal of this is certainly true. One of the great
difficulties undoubtedly is to get the parties to come
together and talk over the points in dispute, and
machinery to make such discussions easier is certainly
desirable. But there are at least three distinct points
mixed up in Sir George Askwith’s argument. First,
there is the old appeal to the ‘ impartial ’ person, who
is supposed to be infallible ; secondly, there is the very
wise insistence on the necessity for calm negotiation ;
thirdly, there is the inevitable dragging in of public

SOCIAL PEACE AND SOCIAL WAR 299

opinion. But ‘ impartial ' persons hardly exist, not
because men are knaves, but because they cannot get
away from their upbringing — and ‘ public opinion ’, as
we have seen, is hopelessly egoistic and contemptible.

Sir George Askwith’s points in favour of the Canadian
Act therefore reduce themselves to one ; and we shall
see, when we come to discuss the actual working of
our own Conciliation Act of 1896, what, if any, value
his suggestion possesses. It is enough for the
present to have learnt that Compulsory Conciliation
does not necessarily involve the prohibition of strikes,
even for a time. The Canadian Act might be strength¬
ened by becoming solely what it purports to be, an
Industrial Disputes Investigation Act.

Before we can proceed to a direct analysis of the
situation in England to-day, there is one further
form of State interference with industrial conditions
which it is essential to study. This is the method
of Trade or Wages Boards, generally connected with
the Wages Boards of Victoria and now with the Trade
Boards set up under Mr. Churchill’s Act of 1908.

The Victorian legislation was passed in 1896, with
the definite object of doing away with sweating.
In certain trades where women were largely employed,
the factory-worker had been tending to be displaced
by the home-worker, and an inquiry instituted in
1892 showed sweating to exist to such an extent that
public opinion — in Australia easier to move and fairer
when moved — was stirred to demand Government
action. The Act of 1896 set up Wages Boards for
four scheduled trades in which home-work largely
predominated, and provided for the extension of the
system to other trades on the initiative of either
House of Parliament. Since 1896, the Act has been
several times modified ; but its provisions remain in

300

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

essentials much the same, though its scope has
been greatly widened. The Wages Board consists
of an equal number of employers and workers, chosen
by the Government,1 with an impartial Chairman.
Their function is to fix the wages and the hours in the
trade concerned, and they tend to get control over
every possible source of industrial dispute. Their
competence has, indeed, been extended to other
questions than wages, and the name, ‘ Wages Boards ’,
is misleadingly narrow. In the sweated trades in
which Boards were set up before 1903, there is no
limit to the wages which the Board may fix, and, in
many cases, they gave women -workers, at the outset,
enormous increases, without, it seems, in any way
damaging the trade or causing any change save the
absorption of home-workers into the factories. Even
prices certainly did not rise anything like proportion¬
ately to the increase in wages. From 1903 dates a
new departure ; the Act has been extended not merely
to sweated trades, but to the ordinary industries of
the country, in which no exceptional sweating existed.
In 1907, there were already 51 Boards in existence,
regulating conditions in every kind of industrial
enterprise. In the case of Boards founded from 1903
onwards, however, a limitation of powers has been
introduced. The regulations laid down by the Boards
may not exceed the standard rate already paid by
good employers. That is to say, in respect of industries
that are not sweated, Minimum Wage legislation
in Victoria has practically confined its attention to
making agreements between sections of employers
and workers compulsory over the whole trade. Their
effect is similar to that which would follow the adoption

1 Since 1903. A third of either workers or employers may,
by protesting, depose a Government nominee.

SOCIAL PEACE AND SOCIAL WAR 301

of the schemes of which we have heard so much recently
for making voluntary agreements legally enforceable.

There is, however, this important difference between
the Victorian legislations and a good many of the
proposals made for this country. The Victorian
system only sets out to fix a minimum standard, and
not to prevent the worker from getting more if he can.
The Act says nothing about making strikes illegal,
and the sole provision imposing any penalty on them
is that which allows the suspension of the Wages
Board Determination in the trade in which a strike
occurs. Thus a dispute on a particular point in the
regulations governing a trade may involve the suspen¬
sion of the regulations as a whole ; but such a penalty
operates only if the regulations are actually, in the
main, favourable to the workers. The Victorian Act
has for its primary object, not social peace, but social
justice, the securing to the workers of a minimum
standard of life.

On the other hand, proposals for making industrial
agreements enforceable over a whole trade very often
aim at standardising the cost of labour, and at fixing
a maximum as well as a minimum. They are often
accompanied by proposals for making strikes penal,
and are, at bottom, devices for securing a servile ' social
peace It is necessary to inquire whether, despite
its professions, the Victorian Act has shown any ten¬
dency to pass over into such a device, or whether it
has really preserved throughout its original character
of an instrument of social justice.

One of the commonest arguments against the mini¬
mum wage is that the minimum inevitably tends to
become a maximum. But this argument is robbed
of all its force because those who use it apply it quite
generally, and take no pains to distinguish case from

302

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

case. Advocates of the Victorian system generally
base their answer on figures dealing with the earlier
period of the Act’s operation, when it applied solely to
sweated trades. They show that the average weekly
wages paid in the regulated trades were in every case
some shillings above the minimum, and argue from
this that the minimum has not tended to become a
maximum. Where sweated trades are concerned,
this is as a rule the case, though even a tendency of
the minimum to become the maximum would not
there greatly weaken the value of such regulation.

Where, however, minimum wage proposals are
applied to trades that cannot be called, in the same
sense, sweated, to large bodies of men earning for the
most part a standard rate regulated within limits by
custom or agreement, there is very little doubt that
statutory regulation of graded minima does standard¬
ise rates, and that the minima do tend to become
maxima. This happens, of course, to some exent,
wherever collective bargaining enforces a standard
without legislation ; but there is no doubt that
statutory regulation tends to standardise the wage
still more.

The main point, however, is that, when a wage is
standardised by collective bargaining, it is always
modifiable by the next act of collective bargaining the
Union may undertake. The minimum tends to become
the maximum ; but the uniform rate so created is not
stationary. When, on the other hand, a rate is stand¬
ardised by statute, it may very easily become difficult,
even if the strike is not prohibited, to alter the stand¬
ard. Such a statutory rate seems to have behind it
a public sanction of equity which renders it immut¬
able. It can be altered by the Board, but any attempt
of the workers to modify it can easily be made to

SOCIAL PEACE AND SOCIAL WAR 303

look immoral. The method of determining wages by
a conception of social justice, admirable when it is
confined to sweated trades, becomes a reactionary
safeguard as soon as it is extended to industry as a
whole.

The whole intrusion of the conception of ‘ equity ’
into the determination of wages gives rise to very
difficult problems. There is a clear and admitted
case in equity for the abolition of sweating, and there¬
fore in sweated trades no great difficulty arises ; but
as soon as any attempt is made to apply the principle
of equity to the whole of industry we are absolutely
without a common standard. Advocates of the
‘ right to the whole product of labour ’ jostle advocates
of the ‘ minimum of civilised life ’ theory ; partisans of
equal payment come into conflict with ' rent of ability ’
economists ; “ to each according to his needs ” is a
formula irreconcilable with its rival “ to each accord¬
ing to his services.” That some labour is robbed
every one will admit ; but any attempt to regulate
wages as a whole raises the pertinent and searching
question whether all labour is robbed. It stands, in
fact, at the parting of the ways of revolution and
reform. Those who hold that labour is robbed, not
merely where sweating survives, but wherever the
wage-system exists, can never accept the principle of
State determination of wages throughout industry.

The Wages Board system, then, has a useful sphere
of influence in raising the standard of life in sweated
trades, and here all parties may reasonably co-operate
in furthering it. The Trade Boards Act of 1909 corre¬
sponds, in Great Britain, to the Victorian legislation
of 1896 — only thirteen years behind. It was the
result of the inquiry into sweating obtained from
Parliament by Sir Charles Dilke in 1906, after the

304

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

magnificent series of exhibitions organised by the Anti-
Sweating League. Applied at first only to four trades
in which sweating was notoriously bad,1 it has recently
been extended, and there is no doubt that considerable
further extensions will before long take place. Agri¬
culture, for instance, will very probably come within
its scope, or be the subject of a new Act on similar
lines.

We have seen that, in Victoria, a similar Act begin¬
ning as a measure directed purely against sweat¬
ing, came in time to be extended over the greater part
of industry. That, even in non-sweated trades, it
secured at the outset considerable advances for the
workers cannot be disputed, and, under its operation,
Victoria does seem to have enjoyed a very great
measure of industrial tranquillity. But it is probable
that this tranquillity will not be long maintained. As,
in New Zealand, the Act worked smoothly as long as
the workers got anything out of it, that is, until the
very rudimentary social conscience of the State was
satisfied, and then began to break down, it may well
be that soon the Victorian workers will reach the point
of diminishing returns in State regulation, and begin
to strike. The coming of this time may well be retarded
by the rather exceptionally developed social conscience
of Victoria ; but it will probably come in the end.
When it comes, the Victorian system will show at any
rate its enormous superiority to that of New Zealand ;
for there will be nothing to prevent the workers from
striking, and nothing in the way of their success, —
except perhaps public opinion.

It is possible that the application of the Trade Board
system in this country to all industries would, in many

1 Chain-making, Lace-finishing, Box-making, Tailoring. See
Board of Trade Report on its Working [H.C. 134].

SOCIAL PEACE AND SOCIAL WAR 305

cases, secure big advances even to workers who can¬
not be called sweated ; but there is not the least doubt
that its benefits would be only temporary, and that
the dangers to organised Labour would be grave.
Organised Labour is just beginning, as the Unions wake
up to the need for reorganisation, to put itself into a
position for facing the employer fairly ; but there is a
great risk that any sort of State machinery, once estab¬
lished, would find the task of ‘ taming ’ most of the
workers only too easy. Fortunately, it would not be
anything like so easy to get the machinery going ;
and this may save some at least of the fighting spirit
of 1 91 1. What organised Labour needs is a straight
fight with the employers ; let real conciliation, that is,
the mere bringing of the two sides together, be stimu¬
lated as much as possible : let disputes be settled
wherever possible without stoppage ; but behind every
dispute there must still be the organised threat to with¬
hold labour. The workers cannot afford to trust to
State regulation, until ' social justice ' means, in the
mind of the community, something more than a
levelling up of the worst-paid workers to the minimum
standard of ordinary efficiency.

The Trade Boards Act, then, has its scope merely
in the gradual stamping out of home-work and
sweating. It cannot solve the industrial problem as
a whole, nor should it be extended over organised
industry. Indeed, its mission is to work for its own
extinction : its greatest service lies in getting the
workers whose lives it regulates to organise for the
protection of their own interests. As soon as a trade
is no longer technically ‘ sweated those engaged in
it will have to look after their own interests ; and the
first essential is that workers at present legislated
for on humanitarian grounds should organise and

20

3°6

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

make their own demands as soon as ‘ social com¬
punction ’ has satisfied its meagre conception of
social justice. The organisation of the woman worker
and of sweated labour generally is one of the greatest
needs of our time ; and it is the business of the
Trade Union movement as a whole to further to the
utmost the admirable work now being done by the
Women’s Trade Union League and the General
Labour Unions.

A great deal of the comparative success, up to the
present, of the Victorian, and even the New South
Wales, system of industrial regulation lies in the
difference of social atmosphere between England and
Australia. If such legislation is now beginning to
break down over there, we have every reason to
believe that it would collapse far sooner here, where
the social conscience is unaccountably stunted, and
the egoism of the consumer almost unmitigated.
Even the Trade Boards Act, great though its benefits
have undoubtedly been, has not done nearly so much
for the sweated worker as the Victorian Act at once
effected. The rises in wages have not, as a rule,
been nearly so high, and generally speaking, the
Boards have shown a good deal of timidity in exercising
their powers. Nor has the stimulus to organisation
been so great as might have been hoped ; but this is
no doubt due to the appalling conditions under which
sweated workers were, and, in many cases, still are,
living. Even with the best will in the world, the
habits of a century cannot be eradicated in a few
years ; with so weak a will as that behind the Trade
Boards Act no very great * change of heart ’ can be
expected rapidly.

For organised Labour, therefore, the Trade Boards
Act has no message. Either no legislation, or other

SOCIAL PEACE AND SOCIAL WAR 307

legislation, must be applied to industry generally.
We have seen reason to suppose that neither Com¬
pulsory Arbitration, as it exists in New Zealand, nor
Compulsory Conciliation on the Canadian model will
meet the case. We have now to comment upon the
actual recommendations made by the Industrial
Council in response to a direct request from the
Government. The Council was asked two questions :

(1) What is the best method of securing the due
fulfilment of industrial agreements ?

(2) How far, and in what manner, should industrial
agreements which are made between representative
bodies of employers and of workmen be enforced
throughout a particular trade or district ?

The scope of the inquiry was limited to these two
points, and in consequence the Report which it has
just issued is in no sense a comprehensive survey of
proposals for State regulation of industrial disputes ;
but the limited reference which the Government
allow ed it showed there was no intention of passing
any comprehensive measure. In the course of its
answer, the Council raises a great many interesting
points : its main care throughout seems to have been
to avoid committing itself to anything very drastic,
and the result is not a very inspiring document.
This shows at least that the Council and the Govern¬
ment realise that they are raising issues which do
not admit of trifling, and that any attempt to legislate
in a hurry will involve them in a mess from which
they will hardly extricate themselves.

The Report is almost unanimous. Though the
Industrial Council consists of an equal number of
representatives of employers and workers, under the
impartial chairmanship of Sir George Askwith, it is
difficult to believe that the Report is the result of a

3°8

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

real agreement between the two parties. It shows
no sign, in any section, that workers have co-operated
in drawing it up, though all the representatives of
Labour sign it without reservation. It is precisely
the sort of document we should expect to be com¬
piled by some mild, ‘ impartial ’ authority, intent on
‘ peace That is to say, the employers have left
their mark on it, and it seems partial to employers’
interests. The phrasing is, of course, strictly impartial.
Sir George Askwith probably wrote most of it.

First, the Council practically throws over the idea
of making strikes in violation of agreements penal
by Act of Parliament. It realises the uselessness of
trying to browbeat Labour by these means. Secondly,
it rejects the idea of a compulsory guarantee fund
to ensure the keeping of agreements. It prefers to
leave agreements to be enforced by a moral suasion,
which it proposes to back up indirectly in other ways.
It repudiates all desire to interfere in any way with
the action of existing machinery for conciliation or
arbitration ; but holds that “ in order that the
interests of the community may be adequately safe¬
guarded ... it is desirable that before a cessation
of work takes place there should be a period of time
(after the existing procedure has been exhausted)
sufficient to admit of (a) the further consideration of the
position by the parties, and ( b ) the opportunity of the
introduction into the discussion of some authority re¬
presenting the interests of the community ”. The Re¬
port “ does not favour co’mpulsory arbitration, . . . but
thinks that before there is a reversion to the method of
strike or lock-out, it is important that there should be
a pronouncement upon the question at issue by some
independent body, or impartial individual ”. It
therefore recommends that, at some stage, the Con-

SOCIAL PEACE AND SOCIAL WAR 309

ciliation Board should call in an impartial Chairman,
with power to recommend a settlement. Differences
about the interpretation and, possibly, the breach of
existing agreements, the Report holds, should be
submitted, before there is a strike or lock-out, to
some impartial tribunal. Unions and Associations
of Employers, it is suggested, should, by a clause in
the agreement, be restrained from giving aid to
those concerned in causing stoppages contrary to
the agreement. But, for the enforcement of these
recommendations, the Council is “ not at present
prepared to hold that in consequence of the rare
cases in which agreements are broken ” — for, as the
Report points out, the vast majority are loyally kept
— “ a new principle should be imported into industrial
arrangements ” by the enactment of penal clauses,
which would only endanger the work of the great mass
of voluntary Conciliation Boards now in existence.

These pious aspirations — for they seem to amount
to little more — form the main part of the Council’s
answer to the first question in its reference. In so
far as this answer dispenses with penal clauses alto¬
gether, it is not a recommendation of any legislation
whatsoever ; it is merely a statement of the Council’s
view as to the best method of conducting negotiations.
The most obvious criticism is that it is far too abstract :
it takes no account of the difference between one
industry and another. There are no doubt cases in
which nothing is to be gained by the rapid strike,
and in these cases and, unhappily, in a good many
others, some of the Council’s recommendations have
already for a long time been embodied in established
machinery of conciliation. But there are others in
which strikes must be sudden to be effective — Building
is an obvious instance — and of these the Council

310

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

seems to have taken no account. Again, there are
certain kinds of strikes which must always be rapid
in any industry — such as strikes on some questions
of discipline and ‘ principle ’ — spontaneous strikes
and the like, and, above all, sympathetic strikes.
Militant Unionism, in arranging any conciliation
schemes involving delay in striking, must always
insist on exceptions being made of such cases, as
the ‘ political ’ strike is excepted from many agree¬
ments in Sweden. Conciliation machinery, if it be
adopted at all, always involves a certain delay ; but
from the point of view of the worker, the object is to
make the necessary delay as short as possible, and
certainly not lengthen it by enacting that a period
must expire between the breaking-off of negotiations
and the declaration of a strike. Such a provision
cannot benefit the worker, and is always likely to
benefit the employer.

To some extent, these recommendations are bound
op with the opinion expressed by the Council on
the duration of agreements. “ It appears to us,”
runs the Report, “ to be to the advantage of the
trade generally that agreements should continue in
force for some fixed period.” Agreements are of
two kinds : “ (a) those which have been arrived at for
the purpose of establishing machinery for dealing
with questions which may arise between the parties,
and ( b ) those which are made as a result of the opera¬
tion of the machinery established under (a).” In
general, the Council holds, agreements of the former
class will last longer than those of the second ; but
“ in ordinary cases the period for which an agreement
is to last should not exceed three years”. It seems
clear that, at any rate, agreements of the second
class should not last so long, though the Council says

SOCIAL PEACE AND SOCIAL WAR 311

little on the point. The Report mentions that the
agreement in the Welsh Tinplate trade, which comes
up for revision annually, satisfies both parties ; and
it seems right, on the face of it, that at least as often
as once a year, and usually far more often, there
should be an opportunity for the revision of terms.
Generally speaking, agreements of the first class,
which only set up machinery, should not, after the
first period of trial, have a time-limit at all. They
should be merely terminable on, at the most, three
months’ notice. Even time agreements of the second
class are, at best, in most industries a necessary evil ;
where a voluntary Conciliation Board is in good
working order, and both sides are organised for
bargaining, there seems no reason why it should not
be open to either party to negotiate at any time.
The real object of conciliation is to make such negotia¬
tions easy, and not to tie down the workers by long
time agreements. If this position were definitely
recognised as normal, negotiation would be far easier,
and the method of agreements would cease to be
open to so much hostile criticism.

So far, on the whole, the Report has appeared a
very mild and harmless document ; the cloven hoof,
however, may be seen to some extent in the Council s
answer to the second question referred to it. In
advocating the extension of voluntary agreements
between representative employers and workers over
the whole trade of a district, the Council professes
to be merely registering the opinion of a very laige
majority of the witnesses it examined. In the par¬
ticular form given to the proposal in the Report, it
would certainly not receive so much support. The
Council’s draft scheme lays down that, on the applica¬
tion of both parties to the agreement, the Board of

312

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

Trade may, after inquiry, extend the agreement over
the whole of the trade in a district, provided that
the agreement lays down that “ so many days’ notice
must be given of any intended change affecting
conditions as to wages or hours, and that there shall
be no stoppage of work or alteration of the conditions
of employment until the dispute has been investigated
by some agreed tribunal, and a pronouncement made
upon it ” (italics mine) . Further, in considering such an
application, the Board of Trade is to take into con¬
sideration whether the agreement contains a provision
forbidding assistance to be given to persons causing a
stoppage in contravention of it.

This is the cloven hoof with a vengeance. The
Council, having rejected the idea of making stoppages
not preceded by an inquiry illegal, now proposes to
produce the same result by refusing to extend agree¬
ments over a whole trade where stoppages are allowed.
This is clearly directed against strikes ; the lock-out
is not affected to the same extent by delay. The
worker is to be compelled indirectly to surrender
what he would not give up were the demand directly
made. This idea, whether borrowed from the Victorian
withdrawal of the determination of the Wages Board
in case of strikes or not, is clearly open to the same
objection. The business of the State is merely to
declare a minimum, where the State has any business
to interfere at all ; it should not tamper with the
worker’s power to refuse his labour as he thinks fit.
If the worker chooses to tie his own hands with time
agreements, well and good : that is not the State’s
affair ; but the State has no right to bribe him so
to tie himself. It may be good or bad to extend
voluntary agreements over a whole trade ; but the
goodness or badness of such a proposal has nothing

SOCIAL PEACE AND SOCIAL WAR 313

to do with the worker’s right to withhold his labour,
and should not be mixed up with it in a single proposal.

The actual desirability of the statutory extension
of such voluntary agreements is a far more com¬
plicated matter than the Report would lead the
reader to believe. The demand first became well
known in this country in connection with the Transport
Strike of 1912, on the occasion of which Mr. Ramsay
Macdonald introduced into the House of Commons
a Bill with the object of extending voluntary agree¬
ments over the whole of the Port of London.1 A
large section of the working-class certainly favours
such a proposal, and there are a good many obvious
arguments in its favour. Employers, it is said, are
often unwilling or unable to give their workers better
terms because, if they do, they will be undercut by
‘ blackleg ’ employers not paying the Union rate.
Thus the existence of a section of unfederated employers
keeps down the whole conditions of the trade, and
is, in any case, unfair to the good employer. More¬
over, from the point of view of social justice, the
extension of voluntary agreements may, in trades
that are not specially ‘ sweated be the easiest means
of securing to all workers a minimum standard of
civilised life. There are, therefore, strong prima
facie grounds for regarding such a proposal sym¬
pathetically.

On the other hand, though a Trade Board or any
sort of compulsory raising of the standard undoubtedly
tends to stimulate organisation in sweated trades,
this no longer applies where the majority of the
workers are so organised as to be able to meet the

1 A Bill to make Agreements come to voluntarily between
Employers and Workmen in the Port of London legally en¬
forceable on the whole Trade, 1912 [Bill 253].

314

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

capitalist in fair fight. In such a case, the extension
of the benefits of organisation to the unorganised
may tend to perpetuate the class of non-union
hangers-on of Labour, and unfederated hangers-on
of Capitalism, men who reap the benefits of organisa¬
tion, but refuse to pay their share. This objection
is met by Clause 50 in the Industrial Council’s Report :

" It has not been proposed that the Board of Trade
should entertain any application for the extension of
an agreement unless such application is received
from both the parties to the agreement. There is
thus no element of compulsion upon either party.”

Further, as in Mr. Macdonald’s Bill, it must always
be open to the parties to withdraw the agreement.
Apparently, according to the Bill, one party cannot
withdraw the registration without the consent of the
other ; but it would seem that, in default of any
clause in the agreement itself forbidding this, an
agreement which requires the consent of both parties
for its establishment ought to require the consent
of both for its continuance.

With these safeguards, there may be cases in which
the power of making voluntary agreements implied
conditions of contract over the whole of a trade in a
particular district will work well : in particular, there
is no doubt that its application to the Port of London
would be of advantage to both parties. But, if such a
proposal is to be accepted by Trade Unionists, there
must be no suggestion of penal clauses in the back¬
ground ; the State must accept the voluntary agree¬
ment as it finds it, and not dictate to the two parties
indispensable conditions aiming at the securing of
‘ social peace ’. The proposal must stand or fall by
itself ; if the issue is dishonestly confused, the whole
will have to be rejected.

SOCIAL PEACE AND SOCIAL WAR 315

It is clear, however, that such a measure as the
Council recommends, even if it were actively adminis¬
tered, would have a very limited sphere of operation.
As the Trade Boards Act applies only to sweated
trades, such a measure as this would apply only where
organised Labour and Capital were feeling the pressure
of undercutting from the unorganised, and had a
common interest in preventing it. This, clearly, is
not the normal situation in Mining, or on the Railways,
or with any form of public or municipal service, or in
the textile industry. It applies, indeed, mainly where
both Capital and Labour are scattered, in the secondary
industries of the country, which stand midway between
the sweated trades and the great centralised industries.
Here such compulsory extension as the Council advises
may do good work ; but, as in the case of the Trade
Boards, any attempt to make a partial remedy apply
to industry as a whole will merely end by wrecking its
usefulness in its proper sphere. Trade Boards for
sweated industries ; compulsory extension of agree¬
ments for some scattered industries, and at the
waterside ; for organised industry, economic warfare,
whether by means of the strike or of negotiation.

The talk about the necessity for new legislation
regulating industrial disputes generally neglects the
legislation that is actually in operation. Anyone,
however, who even dips into the Board of Trade’s
Annual Report of Proceedings under the Conciliation
Act 0/1896 will at once realise that the normal method
of settling disputes in this country is not " the barbaric
method ” of the strike, but negotiation and peaceful
conciliation. The special aid of the Board was in¬
voked, during 1912, 73 times, but only 34 of these
cases involved an actual stoppage. During the whole
period from 1896 to 1912, the Board has dealt with

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

316

597 cases, of which only 292 have involved stoppages.
These cases, moreover, are not the sum total of concilia¬
tion cases, but the exceptions. At the end of 1912,
there were 297 voluntary Conciliation Boards known
to the Board of Trade, all existing for the purpose of
avoiding unnecessary strikes by means of negotiation.
There is a good deal to be said for the view that we have
too much conciliation, and that a big increase in the
number of strikes would do us no harm.

It is certain that there has been among the workers,
during the past few years, a big revolt against concilia¬
tion. This is being seen very clearly now, in the case
of the Railways, in the repeated demands that are
being made for the abolition or reform of the Concilia¬
tion Boards first established in 1907, and reformed in
1911, on the occasion of the national Railway Strike.
The important thing to realise is that these Boards are
really, in the last resort, courts of arbitration. They
provide, when conciliation has failed, for an award;
binding for at least two years, on the part of an ‘ im¬
partial ’ chairman, chosen by the two sections of the
Board from a panel drawn up by the Board of Trade.
Where the two sections disagree, their differences come,
whether they like it or not, before an arbitrator with
power to decide.

It is often difficult for an outsider to reconcile the
fact that, since the 1911 strike, the men have un¬
doubtedly got quite large advances, with the equally
certain hostility of the majority to the Conciliation
Boards, which might seem to have secured them these
advantages. The present doubt as to the propriety
of giving, this October, the required notice to ter¬
minate the Boards comes, not from a doubt as to the
men’s hostility to them, but from the uncertainty
of some of the officials, who support the Boards, con-

SOCIAL PEACE AND SOCIAL WAR 317

ceming the safety of standing up against the men’s
desire.

The chief objections to the Boards fall under two
heads. First, it is complained that they are slow, and
that the employers use them to postpone discussion as
long as they can. This was one of the grievances that
led to the modification of the 1907 scheme, and possibly
further speeding-up might be accomplished without
altering the nature of the Boards.

The second line of objection is more fundamental,
and relates to the whole position of the independent
Chairman. We saw, in the earlier part of this chapter,
how difficult it is to get any really independent person
for such a post, especially in a country where the
distinction in ideas and outlook between the “ two
nations ” is as marked as in England. The impartial
person nearly always comes from the upper class :
even if he is really impartial he is suspect ; and gener¬
ally his ingrained prejudices make it impossible for him
to be so. The workers distrust the ‘ impartial ’ Chair¬
man, and any scheme which rests finally on his decision
is bound to break down sooner or later. This applies
as much to the Boards set up under the Coal Mines
Minimum Wage Act as to the Railway Conciliation
Boards.

The use of the ‘ impartial ’ person lies, not in his
passing a final decision, but in the judicious help he can
give to the parties when they are engaged in negotia¬
tion. Sir George Askwith’s intervention as a mediator
is far more likely to produce a satisfactory result than
any award of an ' impartial ’ Chairman overriding the
opinion of the parties. It is useless to hope, from
legislation, for a means of settling peaceably all in¬
dustrial disputes ; all that the State can do is to facili¬
tate negotiation between the parties. As long as social

3i8

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

inequality persists, industrial disputes will go along
with it : when inequality has been swept away, we may
begin penal legislation in favour of industrial peace—
if we then need to do so. Strikes happen because of
inequality and injustice; and until the people realises
the depth of that inequality and that injustice, it will
be useless for it to apply its miserable standards of
social justice in the hope of securing social peace.
Social peace is an ideal, as Socialism is an ideal ; and
the two will come together, if they come at all.

The State, however, can make negotiation easy.
Avoiding all humbug about inquiries before strikes,
impartial persons and the rights of the consumer, it
can do its best to get industrial disputes settled by
the measurement of economic resource, either without
actual stoppage, or with as short stoppage as possible.
For this, we need no new legislation : the Conciliation
Act of 1896 provides all that is needed : let the State
but give the working-class reason for a little more
faith in the efficacy of its mediation, and let the
workers show rather more readiness to avail themselves
of the machinery. Let the Board of Trade even be
given the power to compel the parties to meet in con¬
ference in the presence of its emissary ; but let that
emissary have no power to make public any recom¬
mendation in connection with the dispute. The
‘ impartial ’ person is often a very good conciliator ;
but he is generally a very bad arbitrator.

On the whole, then, the result of our inquiry into
methods of State interference w’th industrial disputes
is negative. We have decided that there is no panacea,
and that the remedy is to leave the two sides to fight
it out. At the same time, we have seen that, for
particular kinds of trades, there may be valuable
methods of State intervention. The Trade Boards

SOCIAL PEACE AND SOCIAL WAR 319

Act clearly has an enormous value in preventing
sweating ; compulsory extension of agreements may
be useful in certain industries standing between
sweated and organised Labour ; but for organised
Labour no community with as rudimentary a sense
of ‘ social compunction ’ as ours can hope to lay down
rules. Organised Labour must, at all costs, preserve
its right to strike ; and no boon the State can give
it in return can at all compensate for the loss of
that supreme and final defence against intolerable
oppression. The strike is Labour’s expression of
free will ; surrender that, and the worker becomes
the merest wage-slave. The greatest task of the
present is the awakening of individuality and spon¬
taneity in the worker : his apathy is the nation's
weakness ; and the finest thing that can be accom¬
plished by Labour Unrest is a heightening of Labour’s
sense of being alive, an awakening that will lead men
on from mere discontent to the positive striving for
a better life. ‘ Social peace ’ is the cry of mediocrity
striving against ‘ social awakening ’ ; it is the miser¬
able demand of the narrow-minded egotist to be let
alone. But, if the public cannot be made to realise
its responsibilities without being kicked into a sense
of them, the public has got to be kicked ; and strikes
and Labour Unrest are the best way. The demand
for ‘ social peace ’ is an attempt to send Labour to
sleep ; but Labour is beginning to articulate a new
demand, and the morning of a new day is not the
right time for a sleeping-draught.

CHAPTER X

LABOUR’S RED HERRINGS— THE EUNCTION OF
CO-OPERATION

‘ Social peace ’ is not the only cry raised by those
who desire anything rather than a real awakening
of the consciousness of Labour. It is felt in many
quarters that ‘ social peace ’ by itself is not a sufficiently
tempting repast, and, consequently, dealers in ‘ red
herrings ’ are beginning to do a thriving trade. The
premium bonus system and the shop piece-work
system are spread beautifully beside profit-sharing,
tastefully tricked out as * Labour Co-partnership’, on
the festive board. The sole drawback is that these
red herrings, unlike the honest herring that we love,
are not intended to whet the worker’s appetite for
more.

Often, even in the large majority of cases, the
persons responsible for these schemes of ‘ betterment '
are quite honest and well-intentioned. Mr. Cadbury,
in upholding the shop piece-work system, is genuinely
anxious to forward the best interests of his workers ;
Mr. Mundy is a really zealous and disinterested advo¬
cate of Labour Co-partnership. If, then, hard things
have to be said about their schemes, no hard things
need be said about the persons themselves ; the case
is one for reason, and not for denunciation.

The premium bonus system, clearly, has no moral

320

LABOUR’S RED HERRINGS

321

pretensions. It is a mere device for speeding-up,
for increasing profits, and nothing else. If it claims
to increase the workers’ wages, it does not pretend
to do so except for the purpose of getting more out
of the worker. It is a method of getting ninepence
for fourpence extra.

This, indeed, would not be enough to condemn it
outright, though it might reasonably be urged that
the worker himself should receive all the extra profits
due to his increased efficiency. The real argument
against the premium bonus system goes deeper, and
is one with the fundamental reason why all modern
attempts at speeding-up, from piece-work to Scientific
Management, should, in their present forms, be
strenuously resisted by the workers. All such schemes
are speeding-up devices, imposed from above, and
necessarily directed, in part at least, to the securing
of further profits.

The most significant feature of industry during
the past few years has been the rapid change in
industrial methods and processes. America took the
lead in the invention of machinery standardising
processes which formerly required great natural and
acquired skill. This is leading, as we have seen, to
the gradual narrowing of the gulf between skilled
and unskilled, and more than at any time since the
coming of the Industrial Revolution, machinery is
beginning again to oust the skilled artisan. The
first result of this change has been the need, on the
side of the employers, for some artificial method of
speeding-up the semi-skilled and even the skilled
machine-worker ; the dulness of mechanical processes
is such that an artificial stimulus to greater exertion
seems to be required. This is found in some sort of
bonus system, appealing to the individual cupidity

21

322

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

of the worker, and making him do more work than he
would do on time rates. In a limited degree, it may
seem right to apply such stimuli : men undoubtedly
tend to be lazy, and, if such an extra reward makes
them less so, it may appear to be all to the good
of both parties. The dcfnger is that such methods
are not applicable only in a limited degree ; the
stimulus is found to be capable of being heightened
to a very considerable extent : so that, in the end,
the worker, instead of working merely at a proper
and normal pressure, is working much too hard for
health, mental or physical. The good done by the
limitation of hours of labour is thus defeated ; the
worker, fagged out by a hard day’s work, goes home
in the evening fit for nothing, and, instead of an
intelligent and educated people, we get a nation of
wage-slaves, incapable of profiting by the extra wages
they have earned.

Nor is this all ; work at a high pressure cannot
go on indefinitely. The worker to whom ‘ speeding-
up ’ devices are applied grows old sooner, and is
thrown earlier into the ranks of the unemployables.
If he starves, or comes on the State or his Union
for support, it is no concern of the employer’s. He
has made his profit by speeding-up, and he can
always get a new worker to replace one who is worn-
out. ‘ Too old at forty ’ is the cry, nowadays, largely
because men of forty have been worn out in their
youth when they ought to have had time and scope
for reasonable and intelligent enjoyment.

Unless the Unions can resist this state of things,
there can be no remedy until it is realised that the
maintenance of the reserve of labour which Capitalism
admits to be necessary for its operations is a legitimate
charge on profits. At present, the Capitalist wears

LABOUR’S RED HERRINGS

323

his worker out, and then scraps him. This has gone
much further in America than here ; but the great
growth of speeding-up in this country is recent, and
has not yet had time to make its efforts felt. If an
employer wears out a worker he ought to support
him when he is ‘ scrapped ’ ; the ‘ speeding-up ’
system is only profitable because the employer reaps
the fruits without paying for the damage.1

The application of all these systems of ‘ speeding-
up ’ is, then, a national question, and not merely a
matter for the individual employer, who claims to
“ run his business as he likes.” It is as essentially
within the scope of real factory regulation as ventilation
or lighting, and, if the present tendency in production
continues, the Unions will have to step in and make
all these devices impossible or unprofitable. Mean¬
while, it is the business of the Unions to resist with
all their might all attempts to introduce the premium
bonus system and the like into their works. The
system is bad for solidarity, bad for the individual
worker, both morally and physically, and bad for the
community as a whole. For the present, at any rate,
while masters exploit and workers are exploited, the
object of Trade Unionism should be to secure, in most
industries, payment purely by time. It is, of course,
impossible to sweep away the piece-work system
altogether : its general adoption in the coal-mines
and the cotton industry put that out of the question.
But the object of the Unions should be to work for
its reduction, and certainly to resist its introduction
where it is not already established.2

The premium bonus system is a method of applying
piece-work to labour engaged on time rates : it is

1 Just as motor-bus companies make huge profits because
they do not have to pay for the wear and tear of the roads.

1 In any case, a guaranteed day-rate should be secured.

324

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

a particularly bad form of speeding-up, but, in prin¬
ciple, it is essentially the same as all other forms.
All are bad ; but it is, at the moment, particularly
important to resist this new attempt to apply speeding-
up to branches of industry which had previously
been comparatively free from it. Every strike against
such an attempt is a really valuable assertion of the
worker’s right to control, in such matters, the con¬
ditions of his life and labour.

The growth of the premium bonus system, then,
is only typical of a wider tendency. Shop piece¬
work, as described by Mr. Edward Cadbury in its
working at Bournville,1 does not work out so dis¬
agreeably. There is even quite a specious case made
out for its adoption in that case ; but its comparative
harmlessness there depends on the general environ¬
ment. There is no doubt at all that Mr. Cadbury
is, according to his lights, a very good employer
indeed, on the purely material side. The results he
produces savour of priggishness, but that is not for
lack of goodwill on his part. The general atmosphere
of Bournville, in fact, prevents a speeding-up system
from having disastrous results. The worker is arti¬
ficially provided with leisure, and he would certainly
not be encouraged to do himself to death. Moreover,
the system of ‘ shop ’ piece-work, by which wages
are calculated on the output of a whole workroom,
is a very different thing from the premium bonus
system, which merely speeds up the individual worker.
Shop piece-work results rather in a general high
average output ; it appeals to unselfishness, as well
as to cupidity ; for everyone in the shop has to
suffer for the laziness of one member. Were all
employers good employers, such a system might
1 See his Experiments in Industrial Organisation.

LABOUR’S RED HERRINGS

325

produce good results, but in a less ‘ humanitarian ’
atmosphere, it might merely result in co-operative
speeding-up and bullying of the worst sort, and in
a wear and tear of the worker's powers as great as
any the premium bonus system could produce.

Such simple devices for speeding-up, however, are
insignificant beside the latest American invention.
The Industrial Revolution was brought about by
the application of mechanical science to industry ;
the Americans, having discovered psychology, now
propose to apply it to a similar purpose. Scientific
Management, we are told, is to create a second
Industrial Revolution as great, or as bad, as the
first. The motto ‘ The best possible man for the
best possible job ’ is being used to cover a multitude
of sins ; the speeding-up that aimed merely at excit¬
ing the worker’s cupidity is to be replaced by a new
system which employs every ounce of his capacity —
and gives him a slight share in the increased return.

The psychology which is to be applied to industry
is, of course, experimental. It takes, in the first
place, the form of an examination into ‘ vocational
fitness’. When a boy leaves school, he is taken to
the ‘ psychological laboratory ’, and told, after a
series of tests, physical and mental, tests of power
of visualisation, hearing, memory, attention, and the
like, for what callings he is, or is not, fitted. Sensibly
applied, this system might do good ; but psychology
is a young, and generally a very stupid, science,
more likely to make mistakes from a sublime sense
of its own infallibility than to render any valuable
help. There are practically no standardised mental
tests that can be applied with any confidence in the
results. Everything depends on the person who
applies the tests ; the method, in fact, is not scientific,

326

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

but individual. Such successes as the system has
obtained in America are almost entirely due to the
character of its administrators.

The second aspect of the application of psychology
to industry is found in Scientific Management. By
this new method, the attempt is made, not merely
to get the best possible machine, but also to train
the man to be the best possible machine. Let us
take first a rudimentary instance of the application
of physical science to human material. It seems a
simple task to load carts with bricks. The new
scientist, however, discovers that the process, as
ordinarily carried out, is accompanied by great waste
of energy. He makes a study of the necessary motions
of the body, and reduces the loading of carts with
bricks to a science. He then teaches the workers
the simple motions required, and they at once begin
to load twice as many bricks as before in the same
time. The employer then gives them io or 20 per
cent, on their wages, and makes a very substantial
profit on the change. But, he will explain, the result
is clear gain to both ; the worker gets higher wages,
and the employer bigger profits. Unfortunately, it
is found after a time that the new method involves
enormous wear and tear on the worker. His hours
are reduced, and his wages sink to the former level.
His position is either worse than before, or at best „
unchanged ; the employer’s profit remains. If, on
the other hand, the worker goes on working the old
number of hours, he is soon ‘scrapped’, and the
employer calls on the reserve of labour. Every time,
the employer has it.

It is no use pretending that Scientific Management
may not be a valuable asset to the employer, or that,
in one form or another, something like it has not

LABOUR’S RED HERRINGS

327

come to stay. Both in the physical and, to a less
extent, in the mental sphere, an enormous amount
of economy of effort might be made by the applica¬
tion of scientific method to industrial processes. But,
at present, the application of such methods is wholly
in the hands of the employer ; what ought to be
labour-saving devices are merely ways of raising
profits and speeding-up the worker. What, then,
should be the attitude of organised Labour to such
schemes ? Organised Labour has undoubtedly lost
enormously by its attempts to resist the introduction
of new machinery and its unwillingness to accept
inevitable industrial changes : what, then, is it to
do in face of this new phenomenon ? Labour has
resisted in the past because each change has been
used merely as a new method of exploitation ; if
Labour has got any benefit out of the increase in
the efficiency of production, Capital has got far more.
But in each case Labour has been beaten ; the new
method has conquered by force of economic superi¬
ority, and there is no doubt that, if Scientific Manage¬
ment is economically superior, it too will conquer.
No doubt, the danger is not, in this country, anything
like so pressing as it is in America ; but the worker
would do well to be prepared.

To some extent, as we shall see in the next chapter,
the danger may be met by an increase in the control
of the worker over the conditions of his life. Questions
now regarded as in the province of the employer
alone, because they are questions of ‘ discipline ’ and
‘ management ’, will come more and more under the
direct control of the Trade Unions. On the other
side, the State will tend to step in and extend factory
supervision by the prevention of unhealthy devices
for speeding-up. With all this, however, there is a

328

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

real problem to be solved ; and no real solution can
be attempted until the workers are infinitely more
alive to the conditions under which they labour.
The dangers of Scientific Management can only be
met by stronger organisation and greater alertness
on the part of the Unions. If the Unions are really
strong, the attempt to apply such a system will be
the signal for a great organised demand, on the part
of Labour, for greater control over the conditions
of the workshop. It will be either Labour’s most
crushing defeat, or one of the greatest steps in the
evolution of the Unions towards an effective control
over production.

The schemes we have been examining so far appear
definitely, even when they pretend to be to the advan¬
tage of the worker also, as profit- earning devices. We
come now to a proposal in which the ‘ business ’ and
the ‘ philanthropic ’ aspects are more confused, and in
which it is difficult to disentangle the one from the
other. Co-partnership, as preached by the Labour
Co-partnership Association, is, at the same time, a
means for securing social peace “ by promoting a better
understanding between employers and workpeople ”, a
method of increasing profits by increasing efficiency,
a method of raising wages out of increased profits, and
sometimes, when the employer is not listening, a scheme
of social regeneration and reconstruction. We shall
have to take all these aspects of its Protean personality
in turn.

Those who wish to study the actual working of Co¬
partnership must be referred to the numerous books
and pamphlets dealing with the subject, and to the
recent Board of Trade Report.1 It is not proposed
here to deal with its actual working, but merely with
1 See Bibliography.

LABOUR’S RED HERRINGS

329

the general principles behind it. Anyone who questions
the fairness of our estimate will find ample corrobora¬
tion in the actual history of the various experiments.

The first weakness of Co-partnership is contained in
its aim of securing social peace. It is never weary of
asserting that “ the interests of employers and work¬
people are identical ”, when it is face to face with the
greatest class-struggle history has ever seen. In view
of the continued iteration of this fallacy, it will be well
to see what it really implies. It is, of course, perfectly
true that it may often be to the interests of employers
and workers alike that industry should work smoothly ;
but whereas smooth working always suits the em¬
ployer, it suits Labour only if Labour gets its rights.
Labour must always be in a position to upset smooth
working, in order to preserve the balance. Am^ device,
therefore, which ties the workers’ hands by prohibit¬
ing strikes, or giving them" an interest in the business”,
is fatal to the whole purpose for which Labour is
organised — the gradual abolition of capitalist ex¬
ploitation.

Again, Capital and Labour may, as we saw, have
an identical interest in enforcing a voluntary agree¬
ment over a whole trade, provided that agreement only
sets up a compulsory minimum, and there are numbers
of other instances in which, on a particular point, the
interests of Capital and Labour may coincide. It may
be to the interest of both to make the industry efficient,
up to the point at which efficiency begins to mean
excessive speeding-up for the worker.

All these particular coincidences of interest, how¬
ever, in no way prove that, fundamentally and gener¬
ally, the interests of Capital and Labour are identical.
As, in a war, it is sometimes to the interest of both
parties to call a truce, and even to co-operate in tend-

330

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

ing the wounded, so Capital and Labour, in their cease¬
less warfare, must sometimes pause and act together.
This, however, does not destroy the class- war : under¬
lying all these agreements is the essential difference
that there are two claimants to the product of industry,
and that both cannot have what they want. On the
one side, the exploiter, on the other, the exploited ; in
the middle, but nearer the employer, Co-partnership,
with a bee in its bonnet.

We need be at no pains to dispute the claim of Co¬
partnership that it raises profits. In certain cases,
there is no doubt that it does : that is why it has per¬
suaded certain employers to take it up. Where it has
not done so, it has failed either from the peculiar
character of the industry, or from being a badly drafted
scheme, or from the hostility of the workers, or from a
combination of these causes. Normally, if the workers
accepted it gladly, a well-drafted scheme should raise
profits ; more employers have not been led to adopt
such schemes, partly from conservatism and partly on
account of the hostility of Labour.

The claim that Co-partnership raises wages demands
more careful scrutiny. In the large majority of cases,
it is in effect no more than Profit-sharing under a
nicer name, and therefore may be described as a bonus
of 5 per cent, on wages. However, even this increase
may well be illusory. In the first place, it is generally
more than covered by the increased activity of the
worker ; in the second place, when the time for a rise
in wages comes, it may well be that the worker will not
get it : his wages with the extra 5 per cent, will then
be equal to what his wages alone would have been, and
his efficiency will be 10 per cent, greater. This, how¬
ever, may not regularly happen, and we may grant,
for purposes of argument, that the workers really get

LABOUR’S RED HERRINGS

33i

a 5 per cent, bonus. Even so, their solidarity will
have been impaired, their Trade Unionism under¬
mined ; so far from being in a better position to con¬
trol industry, they will be more in the hands of the
employer than ever.

It is granted by a leading advocate of Co-partner¬
ship that all increases in wages due to its operation
must come out of increased profits. The worker adds
10 per cent, to his efficiency, and gets only 5 per cent,
of it as a reward.

The accusation will certainly be made that, so far,
we have spoken of Co-partnership merely as if it were
Profit-sharing. If so, we have spoken of it as it is
usually represented, to the employer. Co-partnership
attempts to distinguish itself from Profit-sharing by
the admixture, whenever the employer is not too in¬
conveniently near, of a measure of social idealism.
It aims not merely at giving the worker a bonus, or
preferential terms for taking up shares in the concern ;
it aims also at giving him a share in the control of
industry. It is, so some of its supporters maintain,
the real peaceful Syndicalism, which will, in the end,
oust the capitalist and give the workers control. It
therefore makes a great point of combining with its
profit-sharing schemes provision for the representation
of the workers on boards of directors or committees of
management. This would be all very well, were not
the worker- directors, in practically every case, not
only now in a hopeless minority, but also in such a
position that they can never hope to become a maj ority.
It may be far worse to have two or three representatives
on a board which is completely dominated by hostile
interests than to have none at all. Workers who are
unrepresented have, at least, a clear fight with their
employer ; ‘ safe ’ representation merely obscures the

332

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

issue, and varnishes the class-structure of industry
instead of destroying it. The workshop committee
that is independent of the management is an admirable
institution : the workshop representative in a per¬
manent minority on a board of management is in a
hopeless position.

The failure of Co-partnership to give any effective
control over industry to the worker would be more
easily seen, were not the issue once again artificially
confused. The Labour Co-partnership Association
concerns itself not only with Capitalistic Co-partner¬
ship, which comes from above, but also with Co¬
operation of Producers, which comes from below.
Fundamentally, the two have nothing in common ;
their union is in part an accident, and in part a manage
de convenance. The Labour Co-partnership Associa¬
tion originated out of the Christian Socialist ideal of
the self-governing workshop : it has only become
capitalistic since its capture by Profit-sharing, which
raised itself to the peerage by the adoption of a nobler
name. Against Co-operation of Producers none of the
arguments that have been used against capitalistic
Co-partnership hold good ; but the idealism which
still lurks round the elusive idea of the self-governing
workshop should not be used to support the capitalistic
device of Co-partnership, alias Profit-sharing.

If we examine the alleged success of Co-partnership
in recent years, we shall find that it is based mainly
on the case of the Gas Companies. Outside them,
it has very little solid success to show, and, in these
instances, its achievements admit of easy explanation.
Gas Companies are not private trading concerns ;
they are controlled by the State, in that they cannot
increase their dividends as they please, but only in
proportion as they reduce the price of gas to the

LABOUR’S RED HERRINGS

333

public. Instead, therefore, of reducing the price,
they can unload the profits which they are not
allowed to divide by means of a bonus on wages.
The workers, however, do not get this bonus for
nothing. They get it in return for a practical abandon¬
ment of the possibility of striking. Strikes in breach
of contract or without a long statutory notice are a
criminal offence. For the loss of the right to strike
the worker is recompensed by a bonus on wages
and an illusory share in control. He has no real
control over conditions ; Trade Unionism is dis¬
couraged or beaten down ; but in compensation for
all he loses, the worker gets a share in profits. There
is no social idealism in such a state of things.

Co-partnership is often represented as a pure gift
on the part of the employer, and the workers are
told that they should not look a gift-horse in the
mouth. But such ‘ gift-horses ’ are just the horses
Labour ought particularly to look in the mouth. They
may so very easily prove unsound. Real advocates
of Copartnership are perfectly sincere ; they do not
see the fundamental difference between capitalistic
Profit-sharing and working-class Co-operation of
Producers. But the capitalist who takes up their
schemes does see the difference. They will tell him
that he must at all costs not use Co-partnership as a
weapon against Trade Unionism ; but, if he can,
he will so use it. They will regard the election of a
working-class director as a first step towards the
complete democratisation of industry ; he will see
in it a way of muzzling his employees. The Trade
Unions cannot afford to accept Co-partnership on
the strength of the good faith of some of its advocates :
in the hands of an unscrupulous employer, it might
easily prove too strong a weapon. Solidarity among

334

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

the working-class is not strong enough to play with ;
it requires stimulating, and anything that could in
any way be made to undermine it must be rejected
absolutely.

As an endorsement of the judgments passed on
capitalistic Co-partnership a circular, recently issued
by the Labour Co-partnership Association, is, to say
the least of it, enlightening. It is intended to catch
the employer, and persuade him to adopt Co-partner¬
ship. It is entitled Co-partnership from the Employer’ s
Point of View. This document seeks to prove that
the enhanced profits Co-partnership can undoubtedly
bring with it are not neutralised by any real danger
that the workers will get control of the business —
unless the employer likes. A few working-class
representatives on a Board of Directors are quite
harmless, and by making long service a condition of
such appointments the employer can always draw the
workers’ teeth. A few nice, mild employees on the
Board only strengthen the master’s hands, and Co¬
partnership gives no security to the worker that he
will ever get more than this share in control. In
matters of ‘ discipline ’, the capitalist can remain as
securely entrenched as ever, and he will even be the
stronger because a strike on a question of ‘ victimisa¬
tion ’ or ‘ discipline ’ will have become very nearly
impossible. When the Labour Co-partnership
Association itself points out that the employer need
surrender to the worker no more control than he
deems advisable, there can be very little doubt as to
the practical outcome of the movement, however
sincere its promoters may be.

The following are the most important passages
from this interesting leaflet :

“ It (real profit-sharing) meets the worker’s feeling

LABOUR’S RED HERRINGS

335

that when profits exceed a fair interest on capital he
is entitled to a share of the surplus he has helped to
create. It produces that mutual understanding between
employer and employed which the rise and reign of the
factory system and the joint stock company system have
made it almost impossible otherwise to secure. It shows
the worker that he is not regarded as a mere machine,
and so lessens the likelihood of any serious dispute
between employer and employed. Moreover, by fur¬
nishing a moral and monetary incentive to good work,
it tends to the success of the business with which it is
allied. The considerateness of the employer tends to
evoke conscientiousness in the employee, and self-
interest operates to sustain it. W ith men thus interested
in their work, management becomes easier, less expensive,
and more efficient.”

So far, so good ; but a little later follows this
dialogue to give the show away —

“ It is surely a risky thing to admit employees to a share
in the control of one s business ? ”

“ This is another bogey. Co-partnership, in its full
development, no doubt seems logically to involve co¬
operation in management, but whether a voice in the
control be given to the workers under profit-sharing, and,
if so, to what extent, is matter for decision in each case.
If voting rights are given, the worker shareholders’
voting power is naturally very limited at first, and,
though it grows as their shareholding grows, their
experience is growing at the same time. ...”

” But at least a man would have to publish his balance-
sheet, and what trouble that might cause ! . . .”

”... Public companies publish their results
without being embarrassed in this way. But if the
concern were a private company, there would be no need
to publish a balance-sheet. ...”

336

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

“ . . . Is an employer to give his business away ? ”

“ That is not in the least necessary. The principles
of profit-sharing and labour co-partnership can be
variously applied. . .

And so on, the italics being kindly supplied by
the Labour Co-partnership iVssociation itself. “ Co¬
partnership, in its full development, no doubt seems
logically to involve ” all sorts of nice things ; this
leaflet proves that such logic is not everything.

Co-partnership, alias Profit-sharing, gains the whole
of its idealistic appeal from its confusion with other
movements that have really nothing to do with it.
On the one hand, as we have seen, it is confused
with Co-operation of Producers, and regards the
Garden City Press as one of its most successful achieve¬
ments. On the other, it is becoming more and more
mixed up with what is known as the ‘ Co-partnership
Tenants ’ movement, which is pure Co-operation of
Consumers applied to housing. The co-operative
housing movement is outside the present subject ;
but it must be made clear that it differs absolutely
in type both from capitalistic Co-partnership and
from Co-operation of Producers. It is a co-operative
movement for providing houses on the part not of
those who make houses, but of those who live in
them ; that is to say, it is as much consumer’s co¬
operation as the Wholesale Society and the distributive
stores.

It is sometimes urged, in justification of mixing up
Co-operation of Producers with Co-partnership, that
the one may easily be developed out of the other.
But it is quite certain that the employer who takes
up with Co-partnership has no intention of bringing
about his own extinction ; nor is there anything in
Co-partnership itself to force his hand. It is a method

LABOUR’S RED HERRINGS

337

of perpetuating the present system, and not of end¬
ing it.

Co-operation of Producers, therefore, presents a
separate problem, which has to be examined by
itself. The arguments against Co-partnership do
not hold against the self-governing workshop ; but
it does not follow that there may not be other equally
cogent arguments against it. The Christian Socialist
ideal of gradually ousting Capitalism by the voluntary
co-operation of producers is no nearer realisation
to-day than when it was first formulated. The
number of self-governing workshops does not grow
appreciably, nor do they show any signs of grasping
an increasing proportion of the trade of the country.
This fact is obscured because, in the Board of Trade
reports on Co-operation, the Societies of Producers
are lumped together with the English and Scottish
Wholesales as ‘ Productive Societies But the
Wholesales, which do the bulk of the trade, are federa¬
tions of distributive stores — that is to say, they are
consumers’ societies. The success of Societies of
Producers must be estimated apart from them.

Briefly, and without going into the evidence, we
must here state a bare conclusion. Societies of
Producers depend mainly for their custom on the
distributive stores, and do not, as a rule, catch the
outside market ; they are enormously dependent
on the personality of the manager, who often bears
the whole weight of the business on his shoulders ;
and they are confined, in most instances, to a few
trades. Thus, they succeed especially in the manu¬
facture of boots and shoes and in printing, both
comparatively ‘ small ’ trades, in which the enterprise
need not be on a large scale in order to succeed ;
but they are non-existent in ‘ great ’ industry, coal-

22

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

338

mining, textiles, metal work and the like. In short,
they may perform a useful function in certain trades
which are carried on best on a small scale ; but
the method of association of producers on the basis of
the self-governing workshops cannot hope to extend
at all widely. It is no substitute for the present
system of production ; the revolutionary hopes once
based on it have now been transferred to that other
form of association of producers, which is the main
object of our study, the Trade Union. In the course
of the next chapter, the discussion of the ideal aspects
of Syndicalism will lead us to pass judgment on the
place of this more important factor in the control of
industry.

But before we proceed to the discussion of the
function of Trade Unionism in the control of industry,
there is a rival solution to be considered. Co-opera¬
tion of Consumers, unlike Co-operation of Producers,
has thriven and spread enormously. The bulk of
trade done by retail Consumers’ Societies all over
the world is immense, and the Wholesale Societies
also are growing rapidly and launching out more
and more into production. Can, then, Co-operation
of Consumers ultimately oust Capitalism, and take
its place universally as the form of the industrial
enterprise of the future ?

At the outset, the immense debt which the Co¬
operative movement owes to the Rochdale Pioneers
must be made clear. People often speak as if Co¬
operative effort began at Rochdale ; but as a matter
of fact Co-operation had been struggling to obtain a
footing long before the Rochdale system was dreamt
of. Until the method of selling at market price and
dividing the profits was hit upon, the movement
had no success. The Rochdale pioneers ‘ made ’ the

THE FUNCTION OF CO-OPERATION 339

Co-operative movement by giving it a commercial
basis. It became not merely the elimination of the
capitalist, but also a.n excellent way of saving up.
It eliminated profit, though at the same time it
probably rather increased working expenses ; but
above all it provided the housewife with an easy
means of saving up money for the end of the quarter.
Co-operation, then, has succeeded largely as the best
known way of compulsory saving. In the process,
it has lost much of its idealism ; but it has certainly
become a ‘ business proposition Very much of the
retail trade of this country is now in the hands of
the stores. In all the important industrial districts
it has won its way ; it has conquered, except in the
South of England, the majority of the well-paid
workers ; and it is still spreading. At present, it
does uot seem likely to conquer the very poor, for
whom saving is out of the question, or the rich, who
have no need to save ; it is a movement of the working-
class, and mainly of the higher-paid workers.

It would not be relevant here to go into the question
of Consumers’ Co-operation as a whole. We are only
inquiring how far the Co-operative movement is in
itself a solution to the problem of the control of
industry ; and the answer must be, in spite of the
astonishing progress it has made, that it provides
no solution. As Co-operation expands, its limitations
become more manifest : on the distributive side,
it seems to succeed only with necessaries, especially
provisions, and as soon as it tries to deal with more
out-of-the-way articles, it begins to break down. In
production, it clearly cannot extend to any of the
greater industries ; it may gradually absorb the
provision trades and, to some extent, the clothing
trades also ; but it cannot intrude with any hope

340

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

of success into most textile work, or into mining or
metal work, A fortiori , it can have nothing to do
with Transport. Certain services are marking them¬
selves out more and more clearly as properly within
the sphere of Government or municipal enterprise ;
and certain others as, at any rate, incapable of being
run by societies of consumers. The sphere of co¬
operation has definite bounds, and it is evident that,
though the movement may double or treble the
volume of its trade, it will remain, in essentials, pretty
much what it is now. It will continue alongside
Capitalism ; but it will do nothing to overthrow it.

Moreover, even in the sphere to which it undoubtedly
applies, it has many unsolved problems to face.
Organised, like the State, on the basis of consumption,
it comes, as soon as it enters into production, face
to face with the forces of the producers. The C.W.S.,
as much as any private employer, and like, as we
shall see, the State itself, has to face the problem of
the control of industry. The working-class, organised
as consumers, come into contact with sections of
workers, organised as producers ; and awkward
questions of rights and functions arise. Co-opera¬
tion, whatever its scope and its limits may be, whether
it is destined to continue in the Society of the future,
or to be absorbed in the wider Consumers’ Societies
of the State and the Municipality, does not and
cannot by itself solve the question of the control of
industry.

Although, as we have seen, the Co-operative move¬
ment has lost a great deal of its idealism, and, especially
in the case of the Wholesale Societies, has become
commercial in outlook and aim, it has yet enormous
functions to perform on behalf of the working-class.
Nor should it be forgotten that there is, working

THE FUNCTION OF CO-OPERATION 341

upon it from within, a large body of idealists who
would willingly recall it to its larger ideals and aspira¬
tions. Co-operators like Mr. William Maxwell and
the leading members of the Women’s Co-operat.ive
Guild are doing a magnificent work in making the
movement realise its duties, in making the members
feel that the stores are not merely excellent savings
banks and openings for investment, but also working-
class organisations, which should be imbued, through
and through, with the spirit of working-class solidarity.
The most hopeful sign is the awakening of a section
of the women. “ Woman ”, as Mrs. Billington-Greig
says, “ is the consumer ’V and it is not till women
are socially alive that the Co-operative movement
will recover its idealism. Then, it may well be, the
new spirit in woman will teach the men the idealism
they have forgotten. But before Co-operation can
take its proper place as one of the three great working-
class movements it has much to learn and much to
unlearn. The ‘ dividend-hunting ’ spirit must dis¬
appear, and prices must not be allowed to rise above
the market level. The Co-operative movement must
make its appeal to the very poor, and constitute
itself one of the means of bringing home to them the
injustice of their situation and the need for social
reconstruction.

Secondly, Co-operation must come into closer
touch with other working-class movements. We
have heard a good deal recently about proposals for
closer unity between the Co-operative Congress, the
Trades Union Congress, and the Labour Party.
Unfortunately, for the present the whole movement
has been side-tracked into a proposal for a political
alliance between the Co-operative Union and the
1 The Consumer in Revolt , by Teresa Billington-Greig.

342

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

Labour Party. This is unfortunate, partly because
political Labour should be independent both of
economic Labour and of ‘ trading ’ Labour, but
mainly because it tends to block useful suggestions
with wild-cat schemes that can come to nothing.
There is not, at present, the faintest chance of the
Co-operative movement as a whole being persuaded
to enter the political field.

On the other hand, the stores and the Wholesales
might do admirable work by co-operating with Labour
in its economic activities. It is a curious anomaly
that in England there is no attempt to secure organised
help from the Co-operative Societies in case of strikes.
In Belgium, the two movements are in the closest
possible touch, as was clearly shown in the course of
the recent General Strike ; and in Germany, though
more independent, they work closely together. The
workers’ power of resistance is enormously strengthened
by such help, and no time should be lost in bringing
about a similar position in this country.

In the first place, it should be possible for the
Unions to increase their power of holding out enor¬
mously, if, in case of need, they provided strikers with
groceries and the like at cost price from the store,
in lieu of a part of their strike pay. Secondly, it
should be possible, as in Germany, to get the stores
to give their members ‘ dividends on account ’, that
is, to enable them to buy with dividends not yet due
to them ; again, the stores should be able to give
advances to strikers, to be repaid gradually after
the close of the strike ; and there are various other
methods, commonly employed in Germany, which
might well be adopted here. In return for these
concessions, the Co-operative Societies might hope to
secure the membership of nearly all Trade Unionists,

THE FUNCTION OF CO-OPERATION 343

and, in addition, to have the Unions, if necessary, as
guarantors for the repayment of the sums advanced.
The Union would benefit enormously, and the Co¬
operative Society would have no reason to fear a loss.

Again, might not the Unions, if this closer co-opera¬
tion in strikes were brought about, reasonably invest
a portion of their funds in the Co-operative Wholesale
Societies, and do their banking through the Co-operative
bank ? Both movements would greatly gain from
such closer touch, and neither could possibly suffer
any damage. Co-operation, by affording the workers
a measure of real help in their uphill fight against
Capitalism, would regain much of its lost idealism ;
Trade Unionism would have its economic power largely
increased ; and the working-class as a whole would
gain in solidarity and cohesion. Further, the closer
touch established between Trade Unionism and Co¬
operation would make it possible to face the problem
of the control of industry in a more friendly spirit ;
and, in the microcosm of the Co-operative Wholesales,
producers and consumers might begin to work out in
amity that future structure of industrial society which
will ultimately have to be applied to the macrocosm —
the country at large. By means of Co-operation, while
it remains an isolated economic phenomenon, the
working-class can only hope to save a little money :
only where the organised consumer comes into friendly
touch with the organised producer is there any hope
that we are nearing the solution, for the time being, of
the eternal problem of the control of industry.

CHAPTER XI

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY— SYNDICALISM
AND COLLECTIVISM

Hitherto, in speaking of Trade Unionism, we have, in
the main, been limiting our survey to the immediate
future, and considering the Unions as fighting organisa¬
tions engaged in a ceaseless struggle with the employer
for decent conditions and a living wage. Every now
and then, and especially in dealing with the Syndicalist
movement in France, we have been led to adopt a wider
view, and take into account claims made on behalf of
the organised producers to a far greater share in the
control of industry and even of Society as a whole.
These claims we have not yet, save by implication,
considered on their merits : we have now to take the
plunge and, from the actual working of Trade Unionism
in the present, launch out upon the possibilities of its
future development. This we shall endeavour to do
in this and in the following chapter : here we shall
deal with the question generally, as a theory, and in
the next chapter we shall try to see how, out of the
present organisation of the Unions, may be developed
a greater Unionism capable of assuming real and
effective control, through its industrial organisation,
over the conditions of life and work.

Broadly speaking, there are three alternatives before
us, in theory at least, three rival claimants to the

344

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY

345

control of industry. These claimants are, first, the
private capitalist, from the small trader to the trust ;
secondly, the consumer organised on a compulsory
basis, from the State to the County Council and the
Municipality ; and thirdly, the organised producers,
the Trade Unions or bodies arising out of them, called
‘National Guilds’. It may seem that Co-opera¬
tion of Consumers falls under none of these heads,
and, as it has been dealt with briefly already, it is not
proposed to recur to it here : it need only be said that
the name of ‘ a State within a State ’ will serve, in a
certain measure, to guide us in placing it aright. The
Co-operative Wholesale is national trading on a volun¬
tary basis ; the store is municipal trading of the same
sort : and it is certain that, if the structure of industry
keeps on its present line of development, Co-operative
enterprise will become more and more like State and
municipal enterprise. If, for instance, as the Labour
Party’s Nationalisation of Mines Bill proposes, the
State took over coal-vending, it would at once be faced
with the alternative, in many districts, of either dupli¬
cating or taking over a Co-operative service ; and it
must be clear that, in such a case, the Co-operative
Society would, as a rule, have to give way. We may
therefore leave Co-operation out of account : we have
seen that its sphere is limited, and whether it retains
or loses the sphere makes no difference to the general
question of the control of industry.

For the moment, then, we may treat the claimants
as being three — Capitalism, the consumer, and the
producer. It is not proposed to go over again here
the well-worn arguments for and against Capitalism.
There is nothing to add to the case against Capitalism as
is has been stated over and over again : the weakness of
its opponents lies in their proposals for reconstruction,

346

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

and the rival solutions of this problem are the subject
of this chapter. Even Capitalism prefers defending
itself by picking holes in the schemes of its opponents
to presenting a reasonable justification for its own ex¬
istence. Its only justification is that “ it’s growed ” ;
and, in order to remove it, Socialists, Syndicalists, and
all sorts of revolutionaries have to come to some sort
of agreement about the reconstruction they propose.
It will, then, be assumed throughout that the com¬
munity as a whole has a right to control its own
destinies, and that no vested ‘ right ’ or interest has
any claim upon it unless it backs up that claim by proof
of positive service. We shall consider, not whether
the community has a right to take away from those
who have, but what, absolutely, is the best means of
organising industry in the interests of the whole.

We are, then, coming at last to what is generally
regarded as the central doctrine of Syndicalism, the
point of its conflict with political Socialism. We are
inquiring how far its insistence that industry should be
controlled by the producer rather than the consumer
is justified by expediency and common sense.

We saw, in our first chapter, that the Socialist move¬
ment in Great Britain had tended more and more, as
time went on, to lay all the stress on distribution and
consumption as opposed to production. Compelled
to meet the attacks of opponents by working out a
system of State control of industry, it was driven in¬
evitably, by the nature of the arguments it had to meet,
into trying to prove that State enterprise could be
made more efficient than private enterprise, and that
the replacing of competition by co-operation would
not ‘ destroy the incentive ’ to«efficiency, but would, on
the contrary, make production better, cheaper and
more within the reach of all. Faced with the enormous

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY

347

inequality of wealth, it was driven to insist on a better
division of the national income ; and, seeing that re¬
distribution was impossible while industry remained
in the hands of the private capitalist, with the control
of prices in his power, it laid stress on the essential
point that the community must step in and replace the
exploiter by some fairer controlling force. Unfortun¬
ately, in driving home all these truths, it was inevitably
tempted to carry arguments too much to their logical
conclusions ; in endeavouring to persuade the world
that Socialism was a ‘ business proposition it forgot
that it must be a ' human ’ proposition also : it found
definiteness and Collectivism, and lost idealism, which
is essential to real Socialism.

The great thing, in the eyes of these Collectivists,
being to increase the power of the State, by which they
meant the functions and operative rights of the com¬
munity as a whole, they were not careful enough to
provide against the abuse of the new power they pro¬
posed to confer. Seeing that the democratic State,
composed of democratic citizens, ought to have abso¬
lute power over all matters that affected the general
well-being,1 they went on to identify their ideal State
and their ideal citizen with the State and the citizen of
the present, and supposed that a mere extension of the
State’s sphere of action would bring all other blessings
in its train. They forgot that the State cannot, in the
long run, be better than the citizens, and that, unless
the citizens are capable of controlling the Government,
extension of the powers of the State may be merely a
transference of authority from the capitalist to the
bureaucrat. Nationalisation was presented as a pan¬
acea for all ills : it was supposed that, if the State

1 Such a State, if composed of active citizens, might not so
readily abuse its powers ; but the wage-system makes active
citizenship impossible for the majority.

34§

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

were given the power, the democracy would rise in its
might to control it. We are learning slowly to be more
sceptical.

The old argument for nationalisation was largely
an argument against competition. We were told, to
surfeit, of the twenty milk-carts which Capitalism
sent rattling down the street, when one would do
just as well. Competition, it was urged, produced
overlapping, and this chaos could be remedied by
State control. On the other side, we were told
that competition was the life-blood of industry ; drain
it off, and trade and prosperity would perish. To¬
day, the whole argument seems a little old-fashioned.
Competition is dying, but it is being killed, not by
the State, but by Capitalism itself. The private
trader is being crushed out by the trust, and Socialists
are now, in America for instance, attacking monopoly
as they once attacked competition. On the other
hand, slowly and with pains, capitalist economists
are reconciling their consciences to a defence of
‘ trusts ’. Trusts, we are told, pay better wages and
secure better services ; by eliminating competition,
they economise and make production cheaper and
more efficient. Time’s strange revenges are more
than a little amusing.

The case of the Socialist has only become the
more overwhelming for the change. Capitalistic
development has proved the futility of competition.
Unfortunately, this logical triumph eaves him no
better off ; for private monopoly is a worse enemy
than private competition. Capitalism, by accepting
Socialist logic, has entrenched itself more firmly : to
Socialist ethics it shows no sign of being converted.

It is clear, therefore, that, fundamentally, the
Socialist was right all the time. The State, in the

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY

349

interests of the whole community, has got to interfere.
Every year it is driven more and more to take part
in industrial regulation ; and, if the capitalists
generally make a good thing out of its excursions into
the industrial field, that is merely because of the
timidity with which it acts and the weakness and
stupidity of the public opinion behind it. The com¬
munity must interfere in industry, and, ultimately,
control ; and the question to be examined is what
can be shown to be the best method of exercising that
control.

It will be easier to see the real strength and weakness
of Collectivism when we have looked rather more
closely at some of the alternatives that have been
proposed. Syndicalism is, on the face of it, and in
the mouths of many of its advocates, a claim for the
complete control of industry by the producer. It
asserts the ambiguous and indefinite doctrine that,
as all wealth is created by labour, the worker has " a
right to the whole product of his work He has a
right, not merely to a living wage and decent con¬
ditions in the workshop, but to an absolute control
over the circumstances of his life and labour.

This fundamental dogma is always modified to
some extent when the Syndicalist position is more
fully explained ; but it lurks to such an extent behind
the thought of most Syndicalists that it is worth
while to examine what, barely, it implies. First,
what is the ‘ labour ’ that creates all wealth ? It
must of course be admitted that it includes ‘ brain-
work ’, and this the Syndicalists readily grant. But,
even so, does labour create all wealth ? Clearly, it
requires both raw material and instruments to create
it with. Does this give labour a right to the raw
material in which it works ; for clearly the raw

350

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

material has a ‘ value and is ‘ wealth In fact, is
it maintained that the miner has a right to the’ mine
in which he works, and the agricultural labourer a
right to the land ? If so, inequality in wealth will
still persist ; for all enterprises are not equally
productive.1 The right of Labour to all wealth is
not a right of any individual worker or class of workers
to any particular object or fraction of the total wealth ;
it is the right of all the useful to eliminate the useless.
It is a right of all those who labour to a fair share of
the good things of this life, and not a right of any
section to absolute control of the product of a particular
industry.

This should not be taken to mean that the producers
in a particular industry have no right to any control
over that industry : it means merely that their right
is not, and is not based on, a “ right to the whole
product of labour”. Syndicalism can make a far
more reasonable demand, if, abandoning abstract
economics and leaving the theory of value to take
care of itself, it adopts the standpoint of concrete
and commonsense ethics, and asks whether, in the
name of justice and expediency alike, the producer
should have the fullest possible share in the control
of the conditions under which he works. It is too
little realised, even by Socialists— and especially by
Marxians — that the whole question of the control of
industry is not economic but ethical. The attempt
to found ‘ justice ’ on the theory of value merely
revives the old conception of individual natural right
in its least defensible form. The right of Labour to a
life of comfort and self-expression is quite independent
of whether it creates all wealth or not.

Leaving aside, then, the economic theory on which

1 That is if prices are fixed not by cost of production, but
by supply and demand.

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY

351

Syndicalism bases its demand, let us examine that
demand solely on its merits. In the minds of most
of its critics, and of a good many of its exponents,
the actual demand is, unfortunately, vague. Syndi¬
calism, which is, in essence, as its name implies,
revolutionary Trade Unionism, varies its proposals
according to the form of Trade Unionism on which
it is based. Where the Unions are well organised
on a national basis, the demand will be for control
of "conditions nationally by the Trade Union as a
wEoIe ; where, as in France, Trade Unionism is weak
and local, the demand will often take the form of a
suggested return to the ‘ self-governing workshop ’.
The close alliance, in France, between Anarchist-
Communism, with its plea for the ‘ redintegration ’ of
labour, for complete local autonomy, and for the
self-governing workshop, is mainly accounted for by
the WficOaiess and parochialism of the French syndicats.
In Great Britain, where Trade Unionism is a strong
national growth, it is safe to neglect all advocacy of
Syndicalism which has not the national Union as a
basis, and Syndicalism has therefore allied itself, in
this country, not with Anarchist-Communism, but
with Industrial Unionism. Syndicalism in England
is a plea that industry should be controlled, not, as
pure Collectivists believe, by the consumers organised
in State and municipalities, but by the producers,
organised in Industrial Unions. It adopts the ‘ Greater
Unionism ’ as an essential basis, and is to be regarded
as a theory of the future function and destiny of the
new Unions which will result from the present move¬
ment towards closer unity. In the next chapter,
we shall be studying the present and future of Trade
Unionism : here, assuming the possibility of developing,
out of the existing Unions, bodies capable of controlling

352

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

industry, we have to discover how far such a system
would be desirable.

As Mr. Sidney Webb, Mr. Graham Wallas, and
others have pointed out,1 ‘ the control of industry ’
is a vague phrase, which covers a number of separate
problems. It is, on the face of it, improbable that
either producer or consumer ought to have absolute
control ; it is unlikely that either the State or the
Unions should take the place of the exploiter
entirely ; for then either the State would be in a
position to exploit the worker, or the worker would be
in a position to exploit the community — just as the
capitalist exploits both at present. The solution must
surely lie in a rational division of functions, allowing
both producer and consumer a say in the control of
what is, after all, supremely important to both.

The first question usually asked of the Syndicalist
is whether he proposes that the workers should
actually own the means of production. The answer
given is practically unanimous : ownership, it is
agreed, must be vested in the community as a whole.
The difficulty arises when any attempt is made to
define ownership. Generally, Syndicalists mean, in
vesting ownership in the community, not to surrender
any share in control, but merely to do away with the
idea of property altogether. Mr. Graham Wallas has
pointed out the essential ambiguity of the word
‘ ownership and has advised that it should be
dropped out of the controversy altogether. After
all, the question is who is to control industry : if
absolute control is placed in the hands of the Unions,
‘ State ’ or ‘ common ’ ownership is merely a name.

1 Mr. Webb in a recent course of lectures on the subject •
Mr. Wallas in a paper on Syndicalism in the Sociological Review.
July 1912.

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY

353

The question, therefore, resolves itself purely into
one of control. Here we may as well adopt Mr. Webb’s
threefold “distinction as a basis for argument. The
control of industry involves, first the decision what
is to be produced, when and where it is to be produced,
and in what quantities it is to be produced. Secondly,
some one has to decide what the processes of pro¬
duction shall be, how production shall be carried on.
Thirdly, the question of conditions, including all the
matters now covered by the Factory Acts, at least some
matters of ‘ discipline ’, pay, hours, and the like have
to be determined by some authority.

What share can producer and consumer have in
deciding all these matters ? The Syndicalist, where
he denounces the State and expresses his determina¬
tion to sweep it away, has to give the producer control
in everything. Even the community which owns is,
to his mind, merely an abstraction, a convenient way
of shelving the vexatious question of ownership. But
even the Syndicalist of this type does not propose to
hand over absolute control to the particular class of
producers engaged in each industry. He suggests that
in the adjustment of supply to demand, the Trade
Union Congress or its Executive and the local Trades
Councils ( Bourses du Travail) should take the place of
the State and tell each section of producers what to
produce. But the question what is to be produced
is a matter either for the workers who actually produce
it or for the community ; it is not a matter for all the
producers as producers, no matter what they produce.
The Trade Union Congress and the Trades Councils,
with their enlarged functions, are in fact merely the
State and the municipality in disguise. They are (for
this purpose) imperfect organisations of consumers
and not real producers’ organisations at all.

23

354

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

Thus, we find at the outset a part of the control of
industry which cannot be handed over to the producer.
Obviously, the consumer, the person for whom the
goods are made, and not the person by whom they
are made, must decide what is to be produced, when
it is to be produced, and in what quantities. Whether
the consumer must also decide where it is to be pro¬
duced is another matter, and does not seem to be
equally evident. 1 This, however, is of less importance,
and the solution will emerge as the discussion proceeds.

This answer, however, simple and self-evident as it
may at first sight appear, really begs the question. It
presupposes the absolute irresponsibility of the pro¬
ducer to the individual consumer as well as to the
State. The capitalist of the present day is theoreti¬
cally in just such a position as this argument tries to
prove absurd : he can produce what he likes, when,
where, and in what quantities he pleases. Only, the
public, on its side, can refuse to buy, and the refusal
of the public is the capitalist’s loss. The consumer
controls the capitalist through his pocket. We can¬
not, therefore, say how far a Trade Union could safely
be given a similar power, until we know what the Trade
Union in question would be like. If it were a trading
body exercising a monopoly, but selling its goods for
its own profit, would not the consumer have on it ex¬
actly the check he has now on the trusts ? And the
trusts are not accused of- making the wrong articles,
but of charging too much for them. There may be
other objections to such a body as the Trade Union
would then be, but it would not be in the least likely
to make the wrong sort of articles or the wrong
quantity, or to manufacture them at the wrong time.
Like the trust, it would be out to meet the demand of
the market.

1 If the consumer gets his goods, it does not concern him
where they are made.

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY

355

If, on the other hand, the Trade Union is not a
trading body, if its members are to be paid at a fixed
rate independent of the selling price of their produce,
if, that is to say, profiteering is to be eliminated, then
clearly the consumer must have some other means of
directing their production. They must, in such a case,
find out what to make by consultation with a body
representing the consumers : they must negotiate
with the State, and be guided by the organised, instead
of by the unorganised, will of the consumer.

There is, of course, a third possibility. The Trade
Union may trade, not directly with the consumer, but
with the State. The State may give its order and pay
the Union as a whole for the produce, and this might
well be in itself a sufficient measure of control. But
enough has been said to make it clear at least that not
even in this first sphere of control can an immediate
answer be given. It will be necessary, then, to return
to the question later on.

The second type of decision, according to Mr. Webb’s
classification, has to do with the processes of produc¬
tion, and it is round these that the dispute really centres.
Trade Unions have, no doubt, shown themselves in
the past bad and partial judges of new industrial
processes. Confronted with an irresponsible employing
class, which thrust upon them exactly such processes
as it chose, with regard solely to commercial value, and
heedless of the effect on the workers, they have come
to regard every innovation with mistrust. They re¬
sisted the first introduction of machinery, and they
have been apt to rebel at every extension of its use.
They have tried to bolster up the old system of appren¬
ticeship and to perpetuate out-of-date methods of
production ; and they have done all this, not from any
deep sense of the value of craftsmanship, but merely

356

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

from a fear that wages would be lowered and men
thrown out of employment. All these reproaches are
habitually levelled at the Unions when it is proposed to
invest them with any degree of control over industrial
methods.

But it is at any rate relevant to ask how we could
expect them to do anything else. Clearly labour-
saving devices and innovations of all sorts, which should
go to mitigate the hard lot of the worker, have been
used, in every case, at least in the first instance, for the
purpose of raising profits. It may be that in the end
the workers have benefited, that finally they have
secured part of the increase through enforced rises in
wages ; but in nearly every case, the first introduction
of the new machine has meant a fall in wages and a
displacement of the skilled artisan. The introduction
of the linotype hit the skilled compositor by enabling
more work to be done in the time and making it possible
for a lower class of labourer to do his work ; and
though the skilled compositor gained in the end, he
could hardly have been expected to have so much fore¬
sight as to see that the volume of work would be so
increased as ultimately to increase his earnings. More¬
over, an ultimate increase is poor consolation for a
period of unemployment to a worker earning normally
just enough to make both ends meet. The opposition
of Labour to new processes arises from the use to which
new processes have been put : where an invention in the
hands of a capitalist employer is unwelcome, it will be
very welcome when the workers, as a whole, are enabled
to use it for the lightening of the daily task. The
failure of modern Trade Unionism to accept new
inventions is no reason for supposing that, were the
danger of exploitation removed, the hostility would
remain unaltered.

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY

357

The producer, then, is clearly entitled to a very con¬
siderable share in the control of this second industrial
sphere. Clearly, the Trade Union of the present, a
‘ lighting or a ‘ friendly ’ organisation devoted to
‘ collective bargaining ’ or ‘ mutual insurance ’, is not
structurally fitted to take over such control. That is
not the question at issue, and the unfitness of actual
Trade Unions to control processes will be generally ad¬
mitted. The question is whether, could Trade Union
structure beTidapted to the purpose, it would be desir¬
able to place such power in the hands of the producer.

Processes are, generally speaking, decided by experts.
Under Capitalism, invention is generally carried on,
for profit, by independent investigators, working in
the hope of hitting on a success, while the normal work
of management, including the application of inventions,
is carried on by a salaried manager. But, more and
more, great firms are retaining their own inventors and
paying them a fixed salary to experiment and give the
firm the benefit of the results. The control of industrial
processes and inventions may, then, be classed together
as functions of ' management ’ — functions with which
Trade Unions organised on the ‘ craft ’ basis of the
present can, at the most, interfere only occasionally
and, in the main, in a negative fashion. The question
at issue is not whether ‘ management ’ should be con¬
ducted by mob-rule, by its transference to the Trade
Union as a whole, but whether the managers, who are
also producers, should be responsible to, and elected
by, the rest of the producers in the particular industry
or by an external authority representing the consumers.
Clearly, if" the consumers elect, the managerial staff
wall remain independent of the workers, who will be
organised over against them as a Trade Union ; if the
producers elect, the managerial staff will be absorbed

358

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

into the Union, which will take on, to some extent, a
hierarchical form.

The right to elect the rulers is a recognised principle
of democratic political theory. Is there any reason
why such a principle should not be applied to industry
also ? Indeed, is ‘ industrial democracy ’ possible
unless it is so applied ? In politics, we do not call
democratic a system in which the proletariat has the
right to organise and exercise what pressure it can
on an irresponsible body of rulers : we call it modified
aristocracy ; and the same name adequately describes
a similar industrial structure. If democracy can be
applied to the workshop, the workers must elect and
control their managers, in so far as those managers
are concerned with the processes, and not with the
what, when and how much of production.

Nor is there any obvious reason why the consumer
should usurp the control of such processes. He must
get what he wants ; but, provided he gets it, it is
immaterial to him how it is made. He need only
reserve the power to step in when he is not getting
what he wants, or, as we shall see, when he is being
made to pay too much for it. Processes, as such,
are to him irrelevant.

On the other hand, the producer has an enormous
interest in being able to control the processes which
are the sum total of his daily labour. Two processes
may be, economically, exactly on a level ; but it
may make all the difference to the producer that one
should be preferred to the other. Not only safety,
but also comfort and variety in manufacture, are
primarily his concern: to him comes home the joy
or the pain experienced in labour, and, therefore, he
should be given the fullest possible measure of control.
How far such control can be given to him here and

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY

359

now, and how far his capacity for it must be gradually
developed, we shall try to find out in the next chapter :
here we have only to make clear that it is on all grounds
desirable that it should be as extensive as it can
possibly be made.

On the other hand, it is evident that the consumer
may have an indirect interest in industrial processes.
As one process may be more pleasant or safer, and
at the same time less economical than another, the
price the consumer has to pay will be affected as
one or other is adopted. He cannot therefore afford
to leave the whole control to the producer, unless he
can secure that the producer’s interest shall be to
supply him as cheaply as possible. If the Trade Union
is a trading body, dealing with the consumers, collec¬
tively or individually, the consumer’s, interest will be
adequately safeguarded by the commercial relation
between him and the producer. If the workers are
assured of a fixed salary, they may tend to adopt the
pleasantest process, whether it suits the consumer or
not. A solution becomes possible only if the Union,
or Guild, itself becomes the employer, and enters into
partnership with the State.

It is often maintained that the producer’s interest
in these matters will be looked after well enough by
the benevolent State, and that, with his organisation
behind him, he need not fear the adoption of the
more economical and less pleasant process unless it
is really just, in the interests of the whole community,
that it should be adopted. Such a view would not be
tenable in the case of a thoroughly democratic State
of democratic men ; still less is it true of the State
of to-day or to-moriw. For the ordinary individual,
the State is so far, and the workshop so near. The
strike moves the emotions and Parliament fails to

360

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

do so just because a man cannot miss the governing
class in the workshop, while few even realise its

existence in the State. Could the workers elect
and remove the governing members of industry,

they would begin to exercise a real democratic
control.

We may admit, however, that the State must to
some extent share in the control of processes. This
it can do by preserving an ultimate right to intervene
in the control of the management with the producers.
Even if the whole personnel of the industry, includ¬
ing foremen and managers of every grade, from the
highest to the lowest, be elected, and re-elected

at intervals, by the workers, the Guild-Socialist solu¬
tion, as we shall see, still provides a safeguard

whereby the State can secure the community against
exploitation. To this also we shall have to return
shortly.

The third sphere of control is that of conditions of
labour, including the regulation of hours and wages.
By those who envisage the Trade Union of the future
as a purely independent body, engaged in negotiating
with the State in a nationalised industry, much as
it deals now with the private capitalist or trading
concern, this has always seemed the chief sphere for
control by the producers. They have, in fact, regarded
the producer’s part in control as confined, for good
and all, to collective bargaining. But as they have,
in many cases, combined this view with an urgent
demand for the extension of Trade Boards, dealing
with hours as well as wages, over the whole of industry,
it would seem that they desire to make the share of
the producer in control altogether illusory ; for the
method of Trade Boards amounts, essentially, to

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY

361

determination of wages and hours by the consumer,
in accordance with a standard of life laid down by
consumers’ morality. It would seem, then, that such
persons give with one hand only to take away with
the other, and that, while paying lip-service to the
ideal of joint control by producer and consumer, they
still leave all the power and all the authority on one
side, and, on the other, only a mere semblance of
representation.

The extension of the system of workshop committees
is the sop generally thrown to the producer by self-
satisfied Collectivism. The workshop committee is,
no doubt, a very excellent thing, and industry will,
in future, adopt it far more generally ; but to regard
that alone as an adequate delegation of power to the
producer is to misconceive the whole force of the
Syndicalistic tendency. In nationalised industry, if
not elsewhere, wages statutorily determined as a
minimum would certainly tend to become the maximum
for which a strike could be declared, though more
might in some cases be paid by the State out of its
grace and bounty. The power of the Trade Union,
as an external organisation, to force up wages would
certainly tend to disappear when nationalised industry
became the rule ; under the State, unless competitive
industry remained beside it, wages would be determined
by the native goodness of the consumers’ hearts, as
reflected in their rulers. A strike against a manager
on a particular question would still be possible ;
strikes concerned with wages or hours would be
strikes against the moral standard of the community
— and, in the community’s eyes, the lowness of the
standard would in no way condone the offence.

Moreover, it is essential now for the Unions to
control wages and hours because their members are

362

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

underpaid and overworked. The demand for the
control of industry is something quite different from
a demand for higher wages or shorter hours ; it is
essentially a demand to control industrial conditions
and processes. It is in this sphere, if at all, that the
demand must be met, and it is useless to try to get
round it by the promise of workshop committees
and strong independent Trade Unions under Collect¬
ivism.

In fact, at the close of our examination of the three
spheres of industrial control, we have come back to
what is, in the end, the crucial question. There are
two opposing alternatives to Capitalism, which we may
call roughly Syndicalism and Collectivism. Is there
a third in which they can be reconciled ?

A good deal has been heard, in recent years, about
the restoration of the Guild Sj^stem, and there has
been, both for and against the proposal, a lot of very
loose talk. By opponents, it is urged that the Guilds
may have done very well in the mediaeval world, but
that we have outgrown them, as we have outgrown
the City-State. The Guilds, they urge, died of their
own rottenness : the system of monopoly and con¬
servatism fell before the onrush of commercial enter¬
prise : the close co-operation and the artificial regula¬
tion of prices are not for us. Moreover, they say,
the Guilds were associations of masters ; and surely
it is not proposed to revive such institutions nowadays.

So much talk about nothing raises the doubt whether
it is wise nowadays to use the word ‘ Guild ’ at all.
Of course, it is not proposed to restore any of these
obsolete economic phenomena : what is proposed is
a reorganisation of Trade Unionism. The New Age
and other advocates call the bodies they propose to
invest with the conduct of industry ‘ Guilds first,

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY

363

because they are to have a statutory and recognised
position in Society ; secondly, because they are to
exercise a monopoly ; thirdly, because they are to
be associations of masters in the sense that, in them,
every man will be a master ; and, fourthly, because
the name does stand for a morality in industry which
we have lost and which it is important to restore.
Further reasons might doubtless be given ; but
these are among the chief. First of all, then, in
discussing * Guild Socialism ’ and the system of
National Guilds, let us be quite clear what we are
talking about, or we shall merely repeat the old
argument that the twentieth century is not the four¬
teenth. In order to avoid confusion, we shall,
wherever possible, substitute the words ‘ Trade Union ’
for the word ‘ Guild ’.

The Guild Socialism of the New Age is a proposal
for the co-management of industry by the State and
the Trade Unions. Ownership of the means of pro¬
duction is to rest with the community, but the Unions
are to be definitely recognised by the State as the normal
controllers of industry. They are to be statutory
bodies exercising a monopoly, but admitting of free
entry on reasonable conditions. The amount and
character of their production are to be determined
for them by demand,1 but the methods and processes
are to be left entirely in their hands : they are to elect
their own officials, and to be self-governing corpora¬
tions with the widest powers. In fact, they are to
resemble in their main characteristics the self-governing
professions, the doctors and the lawyers, of the present.
As the Guilds will include every one concerned in the

1 Demand would be made articulate through the con¬
sumers’ organisations, national and local — i.e. the State and
the municipality.

364

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

industry, from general manager to labourers, they will
be in essence ‘ Guilds ’, i.e. associations not of de¬
pendent, but of independent, producers.

This scheme, which has been brilliantly elaborated
by the New Age week by week for the last few years,
whether or not it is to be ac.cepted as a whole — and
the New Age would certainly not claim finality for
it — is a very valuable contribution to the theory of
Socialism. At last, after many maunderings on the
subject of the Guild System, we are presented with
an attempt to explain what it really means, and to
apply it to modern industry. The New Age has
realised — what most Socialists are too slow to
realise— that the theory of national control of in¬
dustry has got in a bad way, and that it is not enough
to go on saying ‘ nationalise ’, unless you know what
you mean by it. The scheme of Guild Socialism is,
to any one who has read the New Age regularly and
attentively, at least perfectly lucid and coherent :
nor is it merely “up in the air”. Its authors have
taken every pains to find corroboration of their views
in the actual working of industry to-day. Not only
have they seized on the cases of the doctors and the
lawyers ; they have found a more startling instance
in the making of the Panama Canal, which has been
conducted by the United States indirectly, by an
independent, though by no means democratic, system
of control. The State, they hold, has no business
in industry itself ; but as it must, in the last resort,
share control, it has to delegate its power, and for this
purpose it must set up a self-governing authority.
Just as the Government does not interfere with the
internal discipline of Army or Navy, it must leave the
industrial armies to manage their own affairs, while

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY 365

keeping a share in supreme direction, and telling them
what it wants made, but not how to make it.

The first fault that is usually found with this scheme
is that the Unions are not fit to take over such a
charge. This, as we shall see, is perfectly true ; but
they have never been asked to fit themselves for it.
To say that they are incapable of becoming fit is to
go further than the evidence warrants.

We may admit at once that the scheme propounded
by the New Age is faulty in many of its details, and
that it is imperfectly linked up with the Trade Union¬
ism of the present. The New Age, as Mr. Chesterton
has said, is weak on democracy ; it is a little too
apt to be perfectly satisfied, on the surface at least,
with its own ideas, and to resent criticism of every
sort. But the scheme which it presents deserves
from Socialists a measure of attention which it has
certainly not received. The New Age has been
snubbed for its pains by most of the leaders, and can
hardly be blamed for resenting it. The average man
must learn to tolerate the eccentricities of genius.

There is no space here to enter fully into the Guild
Socialism of the New Age,1 which, indeed, is ultimately
less important in its details than in the general ideal
illumination which it sheds. Accepting the general
idea of ‘ National Guild ’ or Trade Union control,
let us try to see a little more clearly exactly what it
implies. Above all, let us ask ourselves whether the
Guild or Trade Union ought to be a trading body or to
sell at prices fixed jointly with the State. We have
seen that it would be dangerous to delegate absolute
control of methods to any corporation which had not
an interest in satisfying the consumer’s needs, and

1 See National Guilds, edited by A. R. Orage. See also the
publications of the National Guilds League.

366

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

satisfying them at a reasonable price. Is there not a
danger that the ‘ Guild if its members have nothing
to gain by producing commodities as cheaply as
possible, will tend to perpetuate antiquated methods
and processes ? The doctors are hindered in doing
this because they have a high standard of their own,
and also because they compete one with another ; but
can the Guild be relied on to have a similar public
spirit and public motive ?

Advocates of control by the producers are more
than a little apt to give the producer even more than
his due, and to make the share of the State in control
to some extent illusory. The objections to Union
profiteering are as overwhelming as the objections to
profiteering generally, and the argument against the
trust holds eqtially when every worker in it is a share¬
holder. The pay of the members of the Guild must,
then, not be of the nature of profit. The State must
have a share in determining it, and preserve some
control. This it will preserve partly in the right to
withhold supplies ; but it will be necessary in addition
to have some regular means of friendly co-operation.
The State and the Unions must not come into contact
only as enemies and when they disagree ; they must
have some common body of general negotiation, in
which the heads of the Guilds may meet the heads of
the State to arrange the production and services to be
demanded of the Guilds. In addition to the National
Executive of each National Guild and to the Guild
Congress, which represent the producers alone, there
must be a joint board, equally representative of both
parties. This body must be linked up, on the side
of the consumers, with Parliament and with a
Government Department ; but it must not be directly
under a Government Department and a Cabinet

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY 367

Minister. Normally, the Guild must be left to ad¬
minister its own internal affairs, and to produce,
by such methods as may seem to it best, the com¬
modities required by this Joint Board and, ultimately,
by the consumer. Producer and consumer together
must control ends, while the Guild looks after
means.

In reaching this conclusion, which in the next
chapter will be made less remote and Utopian, we
have allowed a great deal of what the Syndicalists
claim. To Syndicalism, regarded purely as a theory
of the control of industry, we have allowed that, in
the normal conduct of manufacture, the producer
must be the dominant partner, though the com¬
munity as a whole must always reserve an ultimate
power to override his will. This, however, pledges
us to none of the Syndicalistic theory of the future
of Society as a whole ; nor are we compelled to adopt
the anarchistic views of many Syndicalists. Broadty
speaking, Syndicalism, like most theories that have
something vital behind them, is right in what it
affirms, and wrong in what it denies. The Syndicalist
view of Society as a whole is, very clearly, the theorising
of a man about what he does not understand — the
case of the cobbler not sticking to his last over again.
Syndicalism is valuable solely as a theory of the
control of industry, an assertion of the producer’s
point of view. Even as such a theory, it is again
right in what it affirms, and wrong in what it denies.
It is impossible, as M. Berth desires, to “ sweep out
of the workshop every authority that is external to
the world of Labour” ; the State must always preserve
a certain right to intervene. For, after all, the pro¬
ducer’s organisation is always sectional ; even the

368

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

» Guild Congress represents only all the producers
Producers and consiimers together form the ultimate
[ authority . Syndicalism is wrong if it denies the com¬
munity that final right, if it asserts that the right of the
producer to control his industry is absolute and admits
of no interference or restriction. It is right if it merely
proclaims the immense value of allowing the producer
the fullest possible say in the conditions of his life
and work. It is not to be accepted as by itself a
full or satisfactory theory of the control of industry ;
it is the other side of the great truth which Collectivism
had imperfectly grasped. The true Socialism asserts
the ultimate right of the community as a whole ;
but it lays stress equally on the paramount im¬
portance of leaving the control as far as possible
in the hands of those who are most directly interested.
Socialism cannot afford to neglect either producer or
consumer ; if, as Collectivism, it forgets the one, it
becomes a dead theory incapable of inspiring en¬
thusiasm or bringing about a change of heart ; if,
as Syndicalism, it forgets the other, it falls into
sectional egoism and loses the element of community
and brotherhood in individualism and self-assertion.
Consumption and production are both important
parts of a man’s life, and no theory that leaves either
out of account can touch the man where he is most
alive, in his’ community with all others and in his
daily work.

Collectivism, however, has fought its way and
established its position ; and Socialism is now, un¬
fortunately, almost identified in the minds of most
of its opponents, and even of its advocates, with
Collectivism pure and simple. Naturally, then, as
Collectivism becomes more a business proposition and

THE CONTROL OF INDUSTRY 369

less an inspiring ideal, Socialism is suffering ; it can
only recover and become once more a vital doctrine
if it is content to adopt the good that is in Syndicalism
and reconcile it with the good that is in Collectivism.
This will involve the attribution, in the minds of
Socialists, of a wholly new importance to Trade
Unions : they must cease to be regarded as a pass¬
ing phase due to the abuses of Capitalism, and be
accepted as corporations which are destined not to
extinction, but to a continual growth and extension of
capacity. In studying the future of Trade Unionism,
we shall be regarding it as the future partner of the
State in the control of industry — no longer as a mere
fighting organisation, existing only because the
employer is there to combat, but as a self-governing,
independent corporation with functions of its own,
the successor of Capitalism as well as its destroyer.

24

CHAPTER XII

THE FUTURE OF TRADE UNIONISM

Trade Unionism exists to-day to carry on the class-
struggle. In the economic field, it stands for the
workers’ claim to higher wages, better conditions and
a greater control over their own lives. For the
moment, it is essentially there to fight, to fulfil a
function in securing the justice which Society denies
to its members. Engaged in a ceaseless, uphill
struggle against superior economic resources, it is
naturally preoccupied with the things of the moment :
it is driven to make itself efficient for its immediate
purpose, and has no time to look ahead, or take
much interest in the remoter future. Just as the
individual worker is difficult to rouse to a broad view
of his situation because his economic circumstances
themselves demand all his attention, Trade Unionism,
intent on raising wages at least in proportion to the
rise in prices, cannot be bothered with academic matters
like the control of industry. It would be idle to expect
from the Unions themselves any general realisation of
the deeper significance of Socialism and Syndicalism,
while economic pressure remains so acute, and, we
may add, education so rudimentary and imperfect.

It is, therefore, all the more interesting and significant

that, almost without realising it, the Unions are

moving naturally and spontaneously in the direction

370

THE FUTURE OF TRADE UNIONISM 371

in which their theories, if they had any, would be
bound to lead them. Continuing to regard themselves
as mere ‘ fighting ’ and ‘ friendly ’ associations, they
are coming gradually to make more and more demands
that have nothing to do with hours or wages. There
are the first beginnings, in Trade Unionism to-day,
of an attempt not merely to raise the standard of
life or to ‘ better ’ conditions, but to change the
industrial system, and substitute democracy for
autocracy in the workshop.

As we have seen already, the first and most obvious
sign of this awakening is the rising demand that
membership of the Unions shall be compulsory on
all workers. With, roughly, fourteen million persons
engaged in industry and only round about four million
Trade Unionists, we may seem far indeed from the
day on which such a demand can be effectively made ;
yet more and more strikes are turning every year
upon this point. Although there are eleven million
workers unorganised to-day, organisation in some
of our great industries has already gone so far that it
is becoming possible for the workers to insist on absolute
solidarity. In the Coal Mines and on the Railways,
in the Textile industry of Lancashire and even among
Transport Workers in some ports, the non-unionist
is doomed to extinction. The demand may not be
granted generally at once ; but it is clear from the
recent tendency that in the end it will be granted.
Even now, many employers are prepared to accept it ;
they realise that the day of the individual contract is
gone, and aim instead at building up strong employers’
associations to deal with Unions in which all their
workers are enrolled.

It would be difficult to exaggerate the significance
of this change. Until very recently, even the great

372

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

employers put their hostility to Trade Unionism in
the form of an argument in favour of ‘ free contract
between the individual employer and the individual
employee’. They tolerated the Unions, because they
could not help it ; but they refused, wherever they
found it possible, to deal with them directly, and
continued to argue that, from the point of view of
the community as well as from that of the employer,
all forms of trade combination were necessarily evil.
Except amongst the very uneducated, this sort of
argument is no longer advanced, and it is a sign of
the changed times that in the Report of the Industrial
Council we find, from employers and employed alike,
unanimous acceptance of Trade Unionism. Not only
do both sides admit that Trade Unions ought to exist ;
they actually express their desire that every worker,
as well as every employer, should be organised.

Indeed, when once, on either side, organisation has
reached a certain point and included the greater
number of workers or masters in a trade, the per¬
sistence of a small section in remaining out becomes
a menace to both alike. Collective bargaining, in all
organised industries, is having the effect of standard¬
ising wages and conditions, and when the principle
of a uniform standard is accepted, it is to the interest
of both sides that it should be generally enforced.1
Compulsory Trade Unionism, then, is accepted by all
intelligent persons as being at the least theoretically
desirable, whether or no they regard the use of
legislation, force or organised pressure to bring it
about as either just or admissible.

It will, of course, be a long time before such a
state of things can be brought into being by the
efforts of the workers themselves. The demand will

1 See Chapter IX.

THE FUTURE OF TRADE UNIONISM 373

be made and granted first in a few highly organised
trades, and from these will spread gradually outwards
to more and more occupations. Every miner, every
railwayman and every cotton operative will become
a Trade Unionist, and then, as soon as the Trade
Unions realise their business and begin a great
national campaign among the unorganised, the
principle will spread till, at least in all decently paid
trades, the non-Unionist will be extinct. He will
linger probably among the more scattered, backward
and sweated occupations ; but such survivals will
become the exceptions instead of the rule. The
Trade Unions will have established their claim, as a
general rule, to include all wage-earners in the par¬
ticular industries for which they cater.

There is no need, and it would be fatal, to invoke
the direct aid of legislation in order to bring about
this development. It will come when the time is
ripe ; but any attempt to make it legally com¬
pulsory would do far more harm than good. From
the standpoint of the workers alone, a Union including
a large minority or even a majority of enforced
members would be hampered at every turn. There
is all the difference in the world between a true Trade
Unionist and a man who merely subscribes to a Trade
Union, and, though the influx of a few such nominal
Trade Unionists is not enough to weaken a strong
organisation, it is only where the Union is already
strong that good results can be secured by compul¬
sion. If the Unions are in future to co-operate with
the State, they must be strong enough to stand up
to the State on equal terms ; but bodies created
artificially by the State would be so much material
in its hands, to mould as it might think fitting. The
only way in which compulsory Trade Unionism can

374

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

profitably be brought about is by the organised
pressure of the workers themselves.

This does not mean, of course, that the State should
not use other means, short of compulsion, to get as
many workers as possible into the Unions. Already,
in Chapter IX., we have seen reason to believe that
this would be forwarded by making voluntary agree¬
ments the compulsory minimum standard over some
whole trades, and also that one of the best results to
be looked for from the Trade Boards Act is the stimu¬
lation of Trade Unionism among sweated workers.
There is, however, a further instance to which we
must draw attention here. Whatever view we may
hold on the subject of compulsory contributory
Insurance, there can be no doubt that, if we are to
have the bitters of it, we may as well have also such
sweets as it possesses. With a little common sense
on both sides, the Insurance Act might have given
an enormous stimulus to Trade Unionism. No doubt,
even as matters stand, a good deal of the rapid increase
in Union membership is due to the operation of the
Insurance Act ; but though particular Unions have
taken advantage of such opportunities as it offered,
the Trade LTnion movement, as well as the Govern¬
ment, has much to reproach itself with. A great
national campaign for members, centrally organised
and controlled, just at the time when insured persons
were selecting their approved societies, would have
made all the difference. By a thorough reorganisa¬
tion, the General Federation of Trade Unions might
have been fitted, as Mr. Appleton saw, to take up
the whole Insurance side of the movement, and with
such a membership to draw upon, a good financial
success might have been made of the venture, in
the interests of the workers themselves. Once in

THE FUTURE OF TRADE UNIONISM 375

control of Government Insurance, the General Federa¬
tion might easily have begun to oust the private
companies from every form of insurance work, and
the Trade Unions might have had a great movement,
centrally directed, in absolute control of working-
class insurance. Against the organised protest of
such a body, no Government could long have dared
to maintain the contributory principle. As matters
stand, the Unions, despite Mr. Appleton’s efforts,
have failed to realise their chance, and the adminis¬
tration of the Act has passed largely into the hands
of private concerns.

This is only partly the fault of the Unions. The
crowning treachery of the Government lies in the
admission of the private companies to a share in the
administration of the Act. Worked through voluntary
societies, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer main¬
tained, in order to stimulate the growth of those
societies, the Act was allowed to fall into the hands
of profiteering companies, operating professedly in
■ the interests of their shareholders alone. Democratic
control of approved societies was faked and evaded
openly, and the Government has not raised a finger
to protest. Still, even with a Government whose
tender care for the worker led it to make the Pruden¬
tial prosperous by Act of Parliament, the Unions
might have done much. Instead, when the Act was
before the House, they wavered and squabbled and
showed not the faintest understanding of its real
bearings : when it was once law and past repeal, they
relapsed into childish opposition, and refused to touch
the unclean thing. However unclean the Insurance
Act may be, the Unions have got, for the present at
any rate, to make the best of it ; and that they can
only do by using it to increase their membership.

376

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

One of the great needs, then, of the world of Labour
is for more Trade Unionists. If the Unions are to
bear any important part in the control of industry,
they must stand not for a section, but for all the
workers. At the same time, it is clear that this end
can be reached only by sectional action ; they will
come to include all workers in all industries only by
first getting into their ranks all workers in some
industries. As, in any industry, the number of
workers organised becomes really representative of
the industry as a whole, it is possible to begin agitation
against the continuance of non-Union workers. Re¬
fusal to work with non-Unionists should be an integral
part of the programme of every Trade Union that is
strong enough to enforce it. For not only does the
non-Unionist reap the benefit of advances the Unions
have won and paid for ; he also prevents concerted
action, and so stands in the way of further advances
being secured. The question of compulsory political
action being now more or less out of the way, a man
can have no reasonable excuse except stupidity for
not joining the Union in which his fellows are organ¬
ised — and mere stupidity, as well as knavery, has
to be coerced, where coercion serves a useful object.
Either from stupidity or from deliberate treachery,
the non-Unionist in an organised industry is a traitor
to his class — and the workers have no use for traitors.

The mere non-Unionist is of course more pardon¬
able than the ‘blackleg’. He need only be forced
to join the Union ; the ' blackleg ’ should have no
more protection than the law is absolutely forced to
give him. In especial, the Unions must keep a very
wary eye for legislation, such as the employers in
the Industrial Council recommend, designed to “ afford
protection to those who wish to work ”, that is, to

THE FUTURE OF TRADE UNIONISM 377

place the forces of law still more than now at the
disposal of the strike-breaker. It is not as a rule
wise to offer physical violence to ‘ blacklegs ’ ; but
there is nothing wrong about it, except in the eyes
of the law and the middle class. The only argument
against it, and also against militancy of other sorts,
is that they do not pay.

The enrolment of more members necessitates better
organisation. The Greater Unionism is essential to
the successful conduct of a great campaign against
the non-Unionist. The greatest weakness that now
prevents the Unions from attracting new members
is the overlapping and lack of co-ordination among
themselves. The Unions must include all the workers
in industry, and it must include them in as few
Unions as possible. We saw good reason for believing
that, for the present, Industrial Unionism cannot be
complete ; it is impossible at once to break down
the existing classifications of workers and to re-sort
all on the ‘ industrial ’ basis. But if, in the remoter
future, the Unions are to play the part sketched out
for them in the last chapter, it is clear that Industrial
Unionism is the right policy, and therefore an ideal
to be aimed at. When we have a Trade Union move¬
ment embracing all workers in the great industries
and at the same time under strong central management
and direction, it will become possible to modify their
structure universally. Even as long as they remain
fighting organisations, confronted with a strong
employing class, the ‘ industrial ’ basis is for their
purposes the best. The next problem before Trade
Unionism is a great change of structure, involving
widespread amalgamation and the opening of skilled
Unions to the unskilled. This transition will be a
difficult matter : the attempt to achieve the ‘ in-

37^

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

dustrial ’ basis may easily produce fierce conflicts
between the great Unions concerned — demarcation
quarrels fiercer than before, because they will be not
about work, but about men.

Industrial Unions, as we have seen, will be in a
far better position than the existing overlapping
and rival Unions for achieving the compulsory Trade
Unionism which must come in time, if the control
of industry is to be in any degree ‘ syndicalised.’
At the same time, it will be realised that even the
compulsory Trade Union of which ‘ greater ’ Unionists
dream is not the ‘ Guild ’, the producing unit of which
we are in search. It is still an organisation of em¬
ployees, of dependent and, for the most part, manual
workers, faced by the independent heads of produc¬
tion and their immediate staff of management, who
remain outside the organisation. While the Union
has the employer to fight, it is clear that this division
must remain, that the ' Union ’ cannot evolve into the
‘ Guild ’, the association of dependent into that of inde¬
pendent producers. Nor is the position materially
changed when the State becomes the employer :
under private capitalism and under nationalisation
alike the Unions will have to struggle to secure, step
by step, a foothold in the control of industry. The
way lies in both cases through Industrial Unionism.

It is necessary, therefore, to ask a little more pre¬
cisely what is expected to happen when the State
takes over the great monopolistic industries. The
ordinary Socialist, it may be supposed, still expects
the State merely to step into the employers’ shoes,
and run industry, much as the private capitalist has
run it, for its own profit. Better wages, he agrees,
and better conditions will be secured to the workers
by the omnipotent and benevolent consumer-in-

THE FUTURE OF TRADE UNIONISM 379

chief ; but otherwise there will be no change. The
worker will still be a ‘ cog in the machine ’ ; the
State will merely take the master’s place as skilled
machine-minder. This is the state of affairs which
is often graphically depicted by its opponents as
State Capitalism — a phrase which many Socialists
are at a loss to understand, because they utterly
fail to appreciate the producer’s point of view. The
State may not be, in M. Lagardelle’s phrase, “ a
tyrannical master ” ; but, in the eyes of many
advocates of nationalisation, it is certainly to be a
' master ’ ; and a ‘ master ’, however benevolent, is
not what the producer wants.

It is indeed perfectly true that State Capitalism
is the form actually taken by nearly all national
industry and trading up to the present time. The
British Post Office, Foreign Railway systems, mun¬
icipal trams and gasworks, all the host of national
and municipal undertakings from the German State
coal-mines to the street-lighting arrangements of
Stow-on-the-Wold, are run on the theory that the
public as an employer is merely in the position of
a private employer with more or less of a conscience.
This is, no doubt, in the main inevitable where public
and private enterprises exist side by side, particularly
where, as in the shipyards here, the mines in Germany,
and the railways in France, a particular service is
run partly on Collectivist and partly on Individualist
lines ; and there is reason to infer from the present
position of State enterprise that the State as an em¬
ployer will always be, at the best, no more than Mr.
Cadbury multiplied by several millions — nothing but
the good employer writ large. On neither side is
there at present either the will or the intelligence
needed to create anything better.

380

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

If, however, the State, with the open object, not
only of commercial success and benefit to the con¬
sumer, but also of giving the organised producers
more control over their work, and facilitating the
formation of a ‘ Guild ’ capable of carrying on industry
independently, were to-morrow to introduce a Bill
for the nationalisation of some great industry, what
could it do to make its will effective ? Not very much,
it must be admitted ; but it could make a beginning.
First, it should of course recognise the men’s Union,
and give it every facility not merely for negotiating
about wages, hours, and conditions, but also for
making suggestions and co-operating, by means of
committees, in the routine work of management.
Secondly, with an eye to the future, instead of placing
the industry directly under a Parliamentary President
and a Government Department, it might set up
special machinery by means of which the industry
might be made an independent unit. The higher
officials would, no doubt, have for the time being to
be nominated from above ; but they might be
nominated in such a way that it would be easy, when
the time carne, to transfer the whole business of elect¬
ing officials to the organised industry itself. Through¬
out, the object should be to set up such machinery
as will make easiest the ultimate transfer of control
from the State Department to the organised producers,
while the necessary safeguards are preserved by the
State on the consumers’ behalf. This should be the
aim no less of the State than of the Trade Unions
themselves : the scheme of National G-uilds is urged
in the interests of producers and consumers alike.

1 As we shall see in Chapter XIV., Parliamentary control
can be made far more effective by development of the com¬
mittee system.

THE FUTURE OF TRADE UNIONISM 381

Doubtless, the transference of control will be in its
earlier stages largely local ; and it should be the aim
of the Trade Unions to make it so. It is by entrenching
themselves securely in the control of the actual business
of production, locally as well as nationally, that the
Unions will be able to fit themselves for taking over
the conduct of the industry as a whole. If the State
does not do its part, the Unions will be faced with the
task of coercing it.

Within the industry itself, decentralisation of control
must be carried as far as possible ; every effort must
be made to stimulate the sense of responsibility and
control in as large a number of workers as possible ;
instead of a number of ‘ cogs in the wheel ’, the State
must endeavour to create a body of producers all
actively interested in the proper performance of
responsible functions. Autocracy in the workshop
is wasteful and demoralising, but as long as employed
faces employer across an impassible gulf, autocracy
is bound to last. The Trade Unionist has no motive
for co-operating with the employer ; if the State
realises its duties, he will have every reason for
co-operating with the State.

Moreover, National Guilds imply State ownership
and, to that extent, imply nationalisation. If we
are to wait for producers’ control till the Unions
have directly expropriated all employers, and extended
their power over all industrial conditions and pro¬
cesses, we shall wait till doomsday — and a little after.
Trade Unionists do not, in the main, desire to control
industry nowadays, and, unless those who actually
control it help them to realise their power, it may
be long before they desire, it very much more. It
is the function of the State, here as elsewhere, tc

382

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

liberate and stimulate energy, to give the worker
the fullest measure of control that he is capable of,
in order that he may be got to desire more. The
State exists not merely to supply, but to stimulate
the demand for, the ‘ good life

It is even under nationalisation that we may hope
for the greatest stimulation of the workers to a demand
for the control of industry. There is, however, a
grave danger that, when nationalisation comes, the
State will not realise its responsibilities, and industry
will merely be run on bureaucratic, instead of auto¬
cratic, principles. Nationalisation will so clearly pay
the nation that a man need not have enlightened
views on the future control of industry in order to
be in favour of it. It is well not to put too much
faith in the State and the public, and not to rely
too much on their acting sensibly except under the
influence of fright. It is therefore supremely im¬
portant that the nascent demand for the control of
industry which is springing up within Trade Unionism
should not be neglected. Control can only come
when, inspired from within or from without, the
Unions have made themselves fit for it ; and if they
are even to move any appreciable distance in the
direction of such fitness, they must take up a far
stronger attitude than they have done in the past on
important questions of principle. There are signs that
the Unions are making demands for the enlargement of
their sphere of control ; but there are no signs that
the meaning of those demands is being realised.

‘ Discipline ’ and ‘ management ’ had till quite
recently been supposed, by masters and men alike,
to be spheres in which the employer’s authority was
unquestioned. Yet recent strikes have proved over
and over again that the workers are no longer pre-

THE FUTURE OF TRADE UNIONISM 383

pared to submit to injustice merely because it shields
itself under these names. Autocracy in these spheres
is breaking down ; and, as the Unions grow in strength,
the collective voice will be heard more and more
raising its protest against any abuse, no matter
whether the master plead privilege or not. In some
cases, this will no doubt lead to awkward problems.
In learning to suspect the autocracy of management,
the workers will very likely learn to be too suspicious ;
they will sometimes see injustice where no real wrong
has been done, and, if they become really strong,
discipline in the good sense may become difficult to
enforce. But when this situation arises, it will not
prove the necessity of a return to the old autocracy :
for a reasonable alternative will then have presented
itself. Instead of autocracy checked by insurgence,
it will then be possible to set up real democratic
government : instead of the official, manager, and
foreman appointed from above, industry will begin
to be governed by rulers appointed from below. The
workers, having learnt how to interfere in control,
will then assume actual government, just as modern
democracies have begun by enforcing concessions
by insurrection and have then gradually forced their
way to recognition and habitual control. Instead of
unconstitutional government, the workers will rule
by constitutional government, and industrial democ¬
racy will be well in sight.

It is sometimes said that the most tyrannous rulers
the working-class can have are those who have been
promoted from the ranks, and that if you gave the
ruled governors from his own class he would ask to
have the aristocracy back the next day. There is
much in this argument, and there will always be
much, while the class structure of Society continues.

384

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

In the main, this difficulty in producers’ control can
be conquered only by education : voluntary adult
education, especially in the case of the Workers’
Educational Association, is gradually producing a
type of man who would not be a petty tyrant, but
a sympathetic leader, capable of understanding the
working-class, and remaining of it, even if his standards
rose higher than those of his fellows. But the difficulty
will be conquered by education of another sort also :
the extension of Trade Union demands will gradually
produce a type of man more capable of exercising
control at once over others and over himself. The
Trade Union will change little by little from an
association of dependent producers to a ‘ Guild ’ of
independent producers, in which all degrees of skill and
intelligence will be found harmoniously co-operating.
The Trade Union will come ultimately to include the
‘ management ’ as well as the employees because it
will itself evolve managers.

In the case of the ‘ checkweighman ’ in the mining
industry, there is an official elected by the Union and
recognised by the employer, and the office of the
checkweighman in the pit is often very much more
than his name implies.1 There is no reason whatever
why, as education spreads, and the Unions extend
their demands, this principle of an elected manage¬
ment should not be carried very much farther, and such
an extension would be made easier if the State took
over an industry and the capitalist ceased to control.
For there would then cease to be two classes in per¬
manent opposition within the industrial sphere ; the
State might learn to run industry, not autocratically
for profit, but to get it run as well as possible in the
interest of the community in general.

1 The right, now legally established, of the checkweighman
to be also an inspector of mines has added greatly to his power.

THE FUTURE OF TRADE UNIONISM 385

A particularly interesting example of the growing
share of the Unions in actual control may be taken
from the present position in the South Wales coal¬
field. The South Wales Miners’ Federation will no
longer allow any pit to get to work until the price¬
lists of the wages to be paid have been passed by the
Federation as conforming to the standard rates of
the district. The owner may do the preliminary
work of preparing the pit and opening up the shafts ;
but before he can take out a ton of coal, or begin
to recoup himself for his outlay, the Union intervenes
and dictates, within limits, the conditions he is to
observe. Applying mainly to wages, this system does
not involve any new principle ; but it is a significant
instance of the growth of power and solidarity among
the workers. Where formerly the standard rate
would have been secured, if at all, by a strike when
the pit was actually working, it is now impossible
for the pit to get to work without making the con¬
cession in advance. In the old sphere of control
over wages, the Unions are getting more power and
more recognition ; the Union rate is being recognised
as the standard rate.

We may expect, then, that, alike under Capitalism
and where an industry is publicly owned and directed,
the future will show the Union developing gradually
the powers and the faculties necessary for control.
First will come the stage of mere recognition, in which
the capitalist, public or private, will negotiate directly
with the Union, as an external body. The Union
will still be a fighting organisation, engaged in
industrial warfare ; but it will have made the first
step towards an actual share in Government by
securing the recognition of its right to protest, just
as the political rights of democracy are derived from

25

386

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

the first recognition of a negative right of the Commons
to protest. Nominally, the decision will remain at
this stage with the capitalist, and the Union’s share
in control will depend mainly on the amount of
external pressure it can bring to bear ; but really the
worker will have secured a footing in control, and
made the way easier for the second step. Then will
come a number of stages, in public enterprise at
any rate, where the Union is being taken more and
more into partnership, and the system of dual
management will be developed. The officer elected
by the Union will meet in the middle the officer
nominated by the State, and will drive him gradually
out of the lower posts till the process culminates in
the extinction of the State official, in the realm of
actual industry.1 Finally will come the stage where
the Union will be a ‘ hierarchical ’ body, including
all workers actually engaged in production or trans¬
port, whether their labour is manual or managerial ;
the control of the State being limited, from this point,
to that part of management which is outside pro¬
duction and has to do with the regulation of supply
and demand and the like, and with the harmonising
of the interests of producer and consumer. This last
stage will be what the New Age writers call Guild
Socialism, which is being represented here merely as
the logical outcome of the Greater Unionism.

If this view of the future control of industry is
adopted, it is clear that many difficult problems arise,
at the present day, in connection with the attitude
to be adopted by the State towards the Unions and,
still more, by the Unions towards the State.

The State of the present, for very incompetence
and short-sightedness, is in the main unaware of the
problems it has to face. Its policy is opportunism,

xThis will be accompanied by a similar growth of control
in privately run industries.

THE FUTURE OF TRADE UNIONISM 387

the muddling through accompanied by loose thinking
which are what the Englishman calls ‘ common sense
It therefore settles each question as it arises, without
consideration of wider issues : it takes the Unions
as it finds them, and is wholly unconcerned with
their possible or proper functions in the society of
the future. As a result, it congratulates itself on
its own failures, and regards the record of its wasted
opportunity as a clear demonstration of the eternal
rightness of the ‘ practical man

France, on the other hand, sometimes lets an
idealist climb to power. Waldeck-Rousseau, the
Premier who passed the Trade Union Act of 1884,
faced, before they had become at all clearly defined,
the difficult problems of the relation between the
Unions and the State. And it is at least arguable
that, by trying too soon to take the Unions to some
extent into partnership, he produced the violent
revolt of the Labour movement against all forms of
State control which gave birth to the C.G.T. If
the State, while the Unions still mistrust its sincerity,
attempts to take them into partnership in any way
that involves a sacrifice of independence to compensate
for an increased authority, it will merely drive them
into revolt and put back once again the possibility
of that real co-operation which will come only when
both sides are ready to enter into it willingly. The
present need is for the State as employer to do its
best to foster the growth and independence of the
Unions by giving them recognition ; they must learn
to deal with the State in industry as external bodies
before they can learn to come in and join the State
in actual management. The view that ultimately
the Unions will become real and recognised organs
of the community by no means involves the view

388

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

that they should sacrifice their power or their autonomy.
In order to be able to co-operate, they must be able
to negotiate on equal terms.

The Trade Union has harder problems to face, and
here again the situation is complicated by the tendency
to muddle through and consider only the questions
of the moment as they arise. Feeling quite rightly
that their associations exist above all to fight the
capitalist, as the instruments of collective bargaining
and the assertion of working-class solidarity, Trade
Unionists are always fearful that any sort of co¬
operation with the State means emasculation. They
hear politicians talk glibly about ‘ social peace ’, and,
realising that artificial social peace is the modern
substitute for the Bastille and the lettre de cachet, they
naturally suspect that the State will be equally un¬
friendly to all their aspirations. They are therefore
determined to preserve, above all, an absolute isolation
from governmental functions, “ to'resist to the death ”,
as a French writer puts it, “ all attempts to draw the
working-class into the capitalist sphere ”. You cannot,
they maintain, at once fight the enemy and co-operate
with him ; and the State is the corner-stone of the
edifice of Capitalism.

This argument is difficult to answer, and there is
a great deal of truth in it. The Unions must at all costs
preserve their independence, and any advances made
by the State must be rejected instantly, if they involve
any sacrifice of independence. But just as the State
is being driven, against the will of the rulers, to interfere
more and more with industry, the Unions are being
driven, and will in the future be driven far more, to
co-operate in the task of Government. The Insurance
Act is not an isolated phenomenon : it is a typical
instance of the modern tendency. Hating the Act

THE FUTURE OF TRADE UNIONISM 389

and wishing only to abolish it or at least drastically
amend it, the Unions are forced all the same to ad¬
minister it, if they wish to retain and increase their
membership. A group of Unions as strong as the
Miners’ Federation may be able to say it will have
nothing to do with the Act — though such a policy
may well prove to have been short-sighted and
choleric — ; but the majority of Unions certainly could
not afford to allow offended dignity so much latitude.
Willing or unwilling, they had to come in and do the
Government’s bidding. They realised this : what
they failed to understand was that, having to toe the
line, they had better toe it with the best grace they
could. They might, by collecting the crumbs the Act
threw them, have taken up seven baskets full — in the
sense that they might have doubled their membership.
Their preference for a policy of splendid isolation
lost them their opportunity, and failed to preserve
for them their isolation : they are in the Act, but
they are in it as subordinate partners to the Prudential.

No one can say what will be the next question in
connection with which the same problem will arise ;
but it is certain that, more and more, the Unions will
find themselves called on to decide between co-opera¬
tion and uncompromising hostility. But the Unions,
as the C..G.T. has found, cannot afford to tackle two
enemies at once ; they have their hands full with the
capitalist, without taking on the State in addition
more than they can help. They will be forced, indeed,
to show the State a strong front on many occasions,
especially when the State acts the part of strike¬
breaker ; but they will do this none the less effici¬
ently for realising that the State need not be through¬
out, the capitalist dodge they are apt to represent
it as being. The State represents the consumer —

39°

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

imperfectly indeed ; for it represents him only in the
distorting-mirror of a powerful governing class — but it
has, at least sometimes, to act up to the standards
of the community as a whole. There is much that
the Unions can gain, even from a ‘ capitalist ’ Govern¬
ment ; and their object should be to get all they can
without sacrificing their independence. Let them
think less of isolation, and more of independence ;
and they will find, in the State, the means of strengthen¬
ing their position against Capitalism — and, if need be,
against the State itself.

When, therefore, the State sets up semi-public
bodies such as the Port of London Authority — to take
a particularly bad instance — it is useless for the Unions
to say that the Port of London Authority represents
the employers — though that is true in the main — and
that they will have nothing to do with it. They gain
more by using even the inadequate representation
given them than by standing altogether outside.
What little good work the Authority has done has
been due very largely to the efforts of the two repre¬
sentatives of Labour — Mr. Gosling and Mr. Orbell.
If again, in a Bill for the Nationalisation of Railways,
they are offered representation on the governing
body, let them not refuse it ; let them use it to put
their case before the State authority. Even such in¬
adequate grants of participation in government are of
immense value, and may well be the starting-point for
a general transfer of the normal control of industry to
the organised producers. Let them come in and co¬
operate ; but at the same time let them strengthen
their independent organisations and bring to bear all
the pressure they can. The power of the Unions alone
can turn the inadequate concessions of the present
into the real working partnership of the future.

THE FUTURE OF TRADE UNIONISM 391

Syndicalism then, or whatever we choose to call
the growing assertion of the producer’s point of view,
turns out, on closer inspection, to involve a far less
violent and antagonistic attitude on the part of the
Unions to the State than has generally been supposed.
As long as the employer can raise prices to cover
an increasing wages-bill, it will be impossible for the
Unions to put in practice the direct expropriation of
which they dream, to make industry actually un¬
profitable to the capitalist. The consumer pays ;
and the producer, though he may extend his sphere
of control and improve his relative position, does not
eliminate rent and profits. This elimination, indeed,
cannot and should not be accomplished sectionally,
by a single body of producers acting for themselves
alone ; it is essentially the business of the State — a
general problem affecting all and demanding general
treatment. Nationalisation may be a half-way house
to producers’ control. As we shall see in the next
chapter, the adoption of this view necessitates a
revised estimate of the value and importance of
political action : the general strike is a wild dream,
and even Mr. Tom Mann, is his recent book, seems
prepared to throw it overboard. Expropriation is
the State’s business ; and the development of the new
forms of industrial control must be coupled with the
growth of State ownership. Nationalisation retains
all the importance assigned to it in Socialist theory ;
but it becomes a means, and not an end in itself.

The future of Trade Unionism accordingly depends
on the spirit in which it approaches the task of working
out for itself a status in Society, of changing gradually
front a fighting to a producing body, as the conditions
of Society are modified. The class-structure of Society
necessitates the class-struggle ; but the class-struggle

392

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

is, by virtue of its object, only a phase. What, then,
is to be the function of the Trade Unions when there
are no private employers left to fight ? Is it then to
seek out another enemy and wage a new war against
the State ? If it does this it will fail : for the State is
far stronger than the employer, and might crush the
Unions if it were left uncaptured. It is a poor theory
of Society that regards industrial warfare as per¬
manent ; such warfare is presumably directed to the
securing of justice, and will cease when justice has been
secured. The Trade Unions will then have a higher
function than mere industrial soldiering to perform :
they will be engaged in a task which arises, not out of
social antagonism, but out of social solidarity. The
Greater Unionism involves not merely conscription
of the workers for the class-war, but the enrolment of
every worker in that industrial army which exists
fundamentally not to foment revolution, but to
produce wealth. The Unions have to fight sham
social peace and shoddy patriotism ; but they have
to work for the realisation of that real peace which
can come only with the dissolution of the capitalist
system and the substitution for it of a Society dominated
throughout by the producer’s point of view, which
is the spirit of social service. If the Unions can be
made strong and intelligent, there is no need to fear
the ‘ Servile ’ State ; service is not servility, and the
man who is doing the work of the community will not
need either to touch his hat to any master or to be
always on the look out for a fight. The Trade Unions
must fight in order that they may control ; it is
in warring with Capitalism that they will learn to
do without Capitalism ; but they must realise their
freedom in partnership with, and not in opposition to
the State.

CHAPTER XIII

ECONOMICS AND POLITICS

To a great extent, the conclusions that will be reached
in this chapter have been presupposed in all that has
gone before. We cannot be clear in our own minds
about the structure the Unions should develop, or
about the attitude the State should adopt towards
them, unless we are already in possession of a theory
on the more general question of the relation between
economics and politics, between economic and political
action, both in the present and hereafter. If we hold
that the destiny of the State is to be merged in the
institutions of the producers, our view of the sphere of
economic action in the present will be profoundly
altered ; if, on the other hand, we believe in the per¬
manency and necessity of the State, we shall take a
different view alike of the present and of the future
of Trade Unionism. The ' Sovereignty ’ towards
which we wish to see the Unions moving will be in the
one case a ‘ political Sovereignty ’ coextensive with all
common action that requires co-ordination and control,
and in the other a purely ‘ economic Sovereignty
aiming solely at the control of industry and recognising
in other spheres the paramount right and authority of
the State. It will have become clear in the preceding
chapters that the latter view is that which has been
adopted in this book, and that, on the view that is here

393

394

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

maintained, it is possible to remain a Socialist while
recognising the value of Syndicalism.

The whole problem of government is essentially
bound up with the control of industry. Whether
the economic interpretation of history be true or false,
or a bit of both, no one will deny the paramount import¬
ance of economic considerations in the modern State.
Even those who criticise the world of Labour for
testing legislation by its influence oft the economic
position of the workers generally apply an equally
rigid standard, and ask, of each proposal, whether it is
“ good for trade ”. Both sides are primarily interested
in economics ; only their economic theories differ.

When, therefore, Mr. Balfour attacks the Labour
Party on the ground that it is a class-party, repre¬
senting not the will of the community as a whole, but
the organised interests of a section, he is guilty either
of perversion or of narrow-mindedness. The existence
of a class-party is bad, but the existence of the class-
structure of Society is worse ; and as long as the
class-structure survives, political organisations, in so
far as they have any reality at all, will inevitably
reflect that structure. Sweep away classes, and there
will be no more parties representing a class ; sweep
aw'ay the class-party, and the class will remain, but
will be unrepresented. It is easy to see which alter¬
native involves the greater injustice.

If, then, politics are to possess reality, there must
be a party standing definitely for the dispossessed.
Whether it be ‘ Socialist ’, or ‘ Labour ’, or anything
else by name, it will be distinguished from the capi¬
talist parties by the fact that it is out to give expres¬
sion to a theory, to vindicate the rights of Labour
not merely to slightly improved conditions of villein¬
age, but to actual independence and control, both

ECONOMICS AND POLITICS

395

political and economic. This must be the distinctive
mark of any party that is to have the right to call itself
a ‘ Labour ’ or ' Socialist ’ Party, or to make a third
in the ‘ flat-catching ’ of General Elections. A party
that stands for none of these things has no right to call
itself by any such name, even if it gets its members
elected. It is ‘ capitalist ’ in theory and outlook, and
therefore incapable of representing the real will of
Labour.

To attack the Parliamentary Labour Party nowa¬
days may look rather like flogging a dead horse. If
a General Election came to-morrow, there is not the
least doubt that ‘ Labour ’ would lose many seats,1
and that those it retained would belong to it by
Liberal favour and sufferance. The party consists
of about thirty Liberals, often of the mildest type,
and six or seven Socialists. It is led by a man who
quite honestly believes in independent Labour repre¬
sentation, but believes also in the Liberal alliance.
It consists largely of men who do not believe in inde¬
pendent Labour representation at all, and of a small
section that does not believe in the Liberal alliance.
That is to say, it is under a strong personality who is
both a Liberal and a Socialist — of sorts ; but it consists
of Liberals or Socialists, and not of hybrids. The
philosophic outlook which has enabled Mr. Ramsay
Macdonald to span the impassable gulf is not intelli¬
gible to the simpler souls he has to lead. They do not
detect the finer Hegelianism in a party that is both
‘ independent ’ and ‘ not independent ’ ; they can only
scratch their heads in bewilderment when they are
asked to be Liberals most of the time, and then sud¬
denly told, on a spectacular occasion, that they have
to demonstrate to the world their absolute independ¬
ence of the Liberal Party. Mr. Macdonald threads his

1 1913-

396

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

way cunningly ; but his party is not sophisticated
enough to follow him, and it looks as if the united
Labour Party were about to “ pass into otherness ”,
and become many, if we may speak of Mr. Macdonald’s
poor little party in his own Hegelian language.

Certainly to the man in the street, and to some
extent even to Socialists, recent events at by-elections
have been very perplexing. First we had Leicester :
a vacancy occurred in the Liberal half of a two-member
constituency returning a Liberal and Mr. Macdonald.
The Labour Party decided, against the wish of the
I.L.P., not to contest the seat, whether from lack
of funds or from fear of endangering Mr. Macdonald’s
position at the next election. After some delay, an
independent Socialist candidate was brought forward,
and the Liberal nominee seemed in danger. A curious
passage then happened between the Labour Whip,
Mr. Roberts, and Sir Maurice Levy, a Leicestershire
Liberal member ; in consequence of a communication
made by Mr. Roberts, a message seeming to come
officially from the Labour Party was used everywhere
on Liberal platforms to get the workers to support the
Liberal against the Socialist. Until the election was
over, no denial of the message was issued ; and the
denial then made was promptly refuted by Sir Maurice
Levy. Finally, Mr. Roberts offered a formal apology,
and nothing more was said. The impression, however,
remained in everybody’s mind that the Labour Party
was not so independent as it pretended to be.

Then came Chesterfield. The Derbyshire Miners
put forward a candidate in place of their late leader,
Mr. James Haslam. Mr Kenyon was adopted by the
Trades Council and seemed to be an accredited Labour
candidate. The next that was heard was that he had
been officially adopted by the local Liberal Association.

ECONOMICS AND POLITICS

397

and the suggestion was made that Mr. Macdonald
and Mr. Ure should speak for him from the same
platform. Such dependence was far too open to be
tolerated : Mr. Kenyon got a strongly worded letter
from Mr. Macdonald, and was repudiated by the
Labour Party. Subsequently, the Chesterfield Trades
Council reversed its decision. Mr. Scurr was put up
by the extremists or ' rebels ’ as a Socialist candidate.
In the sequel, Mr. Kenyon was elected by as big a
majority as Mr. Haslam had got in 1910, and Mr.
Scurr polled only a trifle over 500 votes. The with¬
drawal of official Labour support, in a Trade Union
constituency, had no effect whatever upon the result.

After the event, Mr. Macdonald 1 has explained that
his strongly worded letter meant nothing. He and his
friends of the Labour Party, we are told, did nothing
to embarrass Mr. Kenyon, and we are given to under¬
stand that he views with enthusiasm the return of a
Lib. -Lab. whose chief tenet appears to be an almost
theological reverence for the Chancellor of the Ex¬
chequer. Very wisely, Mr. Macdonald wishes those
Labour members who are pure Liberals to clear out of
the Labour Party ; the curious thing is that he should
seem so anxious for them to get elected. The Labour
Party falls between two stools : it is neither professedly
a wing of Liberalism nor in any sense a really inde¬
pendent party. Such a policy must be fatal in the
long-run ; seeing that Labour in effect runs in alliance
with Liberalism, its supporters will return to that
section of the Coalition which is in a position to give
them what it pleases ; the Labour Party as a ‘ de¬
pendent-independent ’ party is doomed to ultimate
extinction.

‘In an interview quoted in the Daily Citizen of August 25,
from the Aberdeen Free Press.

398

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

In this connection, considerable interest attaches
to the views of Mr. James Holmes, the recent
unsuccessful Labour candidate for Crewe. Mr.
Holmes is in favour of accepting and professing the
Liberal alliance, of securing a working arrangement
about seats, and campaigning jointly at the next
election all over the country. If we are to have a
dependent party at all, this is clearly the right policy ;
by becoming openly a wing of Liberalism, Labour
may retain nearly all its seats, and even gain more
in the industrial districts. The position would then
be one that even Labour leaders could understand;
and Mr. Walsh, Mr. Hancock, Mr. Kenyon and the
rest would cease from troubling. After all, Mr. Keir
Hardie is getting old, and there are very few others
who would make a fuss.

But what, in Heaven’s name, is the use of a Labour
Party of this sort ? The Parliamentary Committee
of the Trades Union Congress, with the organised
workers behind it, could do far more by bartering
working-class support at elections for real concessions
in the economic sphere. That is how the Trade Union
Act of 1876 was won ; and there is much to be said
for the method. The policy of a purely dependent
Labour Party is fit to be supported only by Liberal
working-men in search of safe seats.

There is another policy, which Mr. Philip Snowden
has been putting forward tentatively in recent articles
in the Labour Leader. Is it not worth while to chance
the consequences and go out for real independence ?
It is true that the Labour Party would probably be
reduced by such a policy to about a quarter of its
present strength ; but, as Mr. Snowden holds, it is
at least arguable that such a small, fighting group
would be of far more service to Labour than the

ECONOMICS AND POLITICS

399

present party with an appearance of strength far
beyond what it really possesses. Mr. Keir Hardie,
Mr. Snowden, Mr. O’Grady, Mr. Thorne, Mr. Jowett
and one or two others form a nucleus for the growth
of a real Socialist Party capable of voicing the wider
aspirations of the workers in the political field. Such
an independent Labour Party would undoubtedly
have a hard fight, especially for funds ; but if it
succeeded in holding its own, it could do far more
valuable service than the present party, which only
serves as a means of catching the Socialist vote in
the country for Liberal measures in Parliament.

One other solution has been proposed — independent
Socialist representation. Such representation is, of
course, what is really wanted ; but with the Socialist
movement in its present state, it is impossible to look
for the co-operation needed to build up a strong party.
The failure of the B.S.P. and of the ‘ industrial ’
Lansburyites shows clearly enough that it is impossible,
as yet, to build up an independent political force
outside the Labour Party. The solution lies, then,
rather in purging the Labour Party itself, and the
Chesterfield by-election gives hope that the process
is already beginning. Trade Unions raising funds
for political representation on a voluntary basis
must have the way left open to them for coming into
the Party ; and out of them, the Independent Labour
Party and the Fabian Society, with, ultimately, the
B.S.P. and the ‘ rebel ’ Heraldries, it may be possible
to build up a really strong Socialist Party, whether
it call itself ‘ Socialist ’ or ‘ Labour

What then, in our view, would be the function of
such a party ? Even the Syndicalists of the South
Wales Miners’ Federation declare themselves in
favour of revolutionary political action ; but what

400

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

exactly is meant by this word ‘ revolutionary ’ ? It
is sometimes said that Labour in politics should
confine itself to “ furthering economic emancipation ”,
that it should regard itself as “ merely auxiliary to
the industrial arm Such a position is put forward
by M. Lagardelle in France,1 and by the New Age
in this country. But before we can say how far it
should be endorsed, it is necessary to look into it
more closely. Is political Labour confined to this
auxiliary function, not merely to-day and to-morrow,
but essentially and for ever ? Or is it only urged
that the sole useful service a Labour Party has it in
its power to do at the present time is to prevent
legislation against strikes, and to call the attention
of Parliament to the pressing economic problems that
confront the working-class ?

Clearly, if we have been right in our theory of the
future of industrial society. Parliamentary Labour,
or Socialism, will have, in the future, an immense
part to play. Nationalisation, we have seen, does
not become unimportant because the importance of
the producer is recognised : it becomes far more
important. As the control of industry cannot be
assumed in a day, the State will have its part in the
process of transition, and it is of the first import¬
ance that the power should be in the hands of a strong,
democratic Government capable of appreciating the
working-class point of view. Parliament will have,
in future, not merely to clear the ring for the in¬
dustrial struggle, but to intervene more and more, and
to take over control from the capitalist, while on their
side the workers are assuming control.

If, however, the insistence on the subordinate
1 Le Socialisme Ouvrier, passim.

ECONOMICS AND POLITICS

401

function of Parliament has reference only to the
present, it is still, indeed, exaggerated ; but it is
broadly right. Labour cannot hope, within a measur¬
able space of time, to command a majority : it is
condemned to perpetual opposition, and, consequently,
has to rely on the weapon of organised protest. Such
a Labour Party as was advocated above would not,
as a rule, be important by virtue of its actual voting
strength ; it would depend for its power on the
organised force behind it in the country as a whole.
It would therefore be concerned mainly with urging
upon the attention of Parliament the economic demands
of the workers it stood for ; and the concessions it
obtained would vary with the power of the Trade
Unions to make themselves a nuisance if their demands
were refused. It would, in this sense, be merely
seconding, and registering the fruits of, economic
action or power.

Broadly speaking, therefore, we may admit that,
for the present, the task of the Labour Party is
secondary, and that, in a House still dominated by
class-interests, it can only hope to get listened to in
so far as it has organised force behind it. At this
point, however, the advocate of political action as
to-day the strongest weapon in the workers’ hands
generally turns round upon his opponent with a tu
quoque. “ You say,” he urges, “ that political action
is impotent ; but what about industrial action ? The
strike fails far more regularly and far more fatally
to accomplish what it promises. ' For every rise in
wages, prices go up threefold ; and, even so, it is
becoming more and more impossible for the workers,
however organised, to face the organised employers
on equal terms. The strike is played out ; instead,
we must convince men of the need for stronger political
26

402

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

action, by which alone the expropriation of the ruling
class can be brought about.”

This argument, coupled with the sentimental
objection that the strike is ‘ barbarous is so often
advanced that something has to be said about it.
In the first place, it is quite true that the strike is
barbarous and horrible ; but if it succeeds, it is a
necessary evil which pays on the whole. The worker
cannot afford to have too many feelings for the
community till the community develops feelings for
him : till then, it is even good that the consumer
should sometimes suffer for the injustices he allows
to go on. The consumer is not the innocent third
party he is often represented as being ; he is the
exploiter’s accomplice before the fact.

If, then, strikes do or can succeed, what we want
is more strikes. If they do not and cannot succeed,
we must give up our antiquated weapon, and forsake
the blunderbuss of economic action for the scientific
precision of the parliamentary repeating rifle. Should
we find, however, that the blunderbuss, awkward as
it is, contains real shot, while the rifle is provided
only with blank cartridges, we may prefer to retain
the older and more cumbrous weapon. The difficulty
is to find any means of testing the two on their merits.
Clearly, Labour has often missed its enemy with the
blunderbuss ; but whether the parliamentary rifleman
has aimed crooked and missed, or aimed straight
with a blank cartridge, it is a trifle difficult to
determine.

In the past, strikes have often failed and often
succeeded. Political action on the part of Labour
has achieved nothing at all, since the passing of the
Trade Disputes Act. This year,1 every section of
the Coalition has driven its bargain with the Govern-

1 1913-

ECONOMICS AND POLITICS

403

ment, except the Labour Party ; Labour alone has
got only kicks for its ha’pence. On the other hand,
since 1900, prices have risen out of all proportion
to the rise in wages, and the worker was undoubtedly,
in 1910, far worse off than he had been ten years
before. Four years of Liberalism, with quite a
strong Labour group in Parliament, had done nothing
to raise the worker’s standard of life. But neither,
it is urged, had industrial action done anything.
The answer is that from 1900 to 1910, the workers
allowed their economic organisations to go to sleep.
The rediscovery of political action, after a preparatory
period, brought a strong Labour Party into being in
1906, and round this the hopes of the workers were
centred. By 1910, the Unions, if they had not lost
their illusions about the Labour Party, had at least
realised the need to supplement it, and the Labour
Unrest followed. We must judge of the success or
failure of economic action, not by its achievements
over the whole period from 1900 to 1913, but by
what it has done since 1910.

During these three years, at any rate, the strike
has shown its power. Though there have, of course,
been failures, it cannot be disputed that, as soon as
the workers began once more to apply the industrial
weapon, wages began to go up and conditions to
be improved. Both the national Transport strike
of 1911 and the national Railway strike brought
the workers in those industries large advances, and
the recent strikes in the Black Country were also,
in the main, very successful. It has been demon¬
strated clearly that the strike is not played out, and
that, on the contrary, real wages can be made to keep
pace with the rise in prices only if Labour is cease¬
lessly active in the economic sphere. The instances

404

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

of failure, the London Transport strike of 1912 and
the Leith strike of 1913, admit of other explanations.
They failed, not because strikes must fail, but because
they were declared at the wrong moment, and because
the organisation behind them was weak. Those who
refuse to believe that strikes must fail are far from
thinking that strikes always succeed.

Indeed, the successes that have been recorded are
far more surprising than the failures. Politically,
Labour is a co-ordinated movement, capable of
united action and possessed by a common policy :
yet it has achieved nothing. Economically, Labour
is hopelessly divided. The various Unions are almost
without co-ordination and wholly without a common
method and policy. There is no central authority,
and there is no common brain. If results have been
got with such an instrument as present-day Trade
Unionism, there is every hope for the future. For
the use of the industrial weapon is already teaching
the workers that better organisation is necessary :
they are seeing that strikes fail, where they fail, largely
because the forces of Labour are not united, and
succeed, where they succeed, in spite of the Unions’
weakness and disunion. The Greater Unionism will
add enormously to the economic power of the workers ;
it will make successful strikes far more frequent, and
will often make strikes unnecessary. The Railway-
men have already found this out ; since they won
their national strike in 1911, they have achieved the
fusion of three out of the four Railway Unions ;
and it is easy to see, from the temper generally dis¬
played among them, that they realise how enormously
unity has increased their strength. The day of small
Unions is past ; but the day of strikes has by no
means gone with it.

ECONOMICS AND POLITICS

4°5

The contention of Mr. Snowden 1 was that the
only strikes that have any chance of succeeding nowa¬
days are the small strikes, by which he seemed to
mean the scattered and almost unorganised uprisings
of sweated workers. No strike, according to him,
can succeed nowadays without the support of public
opinion. These contentions have been proved to be
false by the events of the last three years. Small
strikes have succeeded, but so have big strikes, and
there have been less failures in the case of large than
of small stoppages. Naturally, the unrest has tempted
a good many workers who are very badly organised
and very weak in economic resource to try their luck
along with the others ; and it is true that such strikes
have succeeded, as a rule, only where plenty of public
support has been forthcoming. But, without any
real public opinion either for or against, other great
upheavals have succeeded ; and if we are to draw
any moral from recent events, it should be that
organised strikes have every chance of success where
the Unions behind them are really strong. The
sectional strike and the local strike, unsupported by
the national organisations, have proved their weak¬
ness ; but the moral is not that the strike weapon
should be thrown aside as useless, but that the workers
should improve their organisations to secure full
solidarity. Not statutory regulation of wages, but
the Greater Unionism, is what the experience of the
last three years ought to teach.

When, however, we go on to ask whether industrial
action can, by itself, bring about the social revolution,
the same answer will not suffice. Even if strikes
can succeed in raising real wages and in bettering
conditions, it does not follow that they can ever,

1 In The Living Wage.

406

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

by themselves, bring about the expropriation of the
capitalist. Nor does it follow that, even if they
could, they would be the best means of doing so.
For if, as the Industrial Democracy League recom¬
mends, the South Wales Miners could, by a series of
encroachments, actually make industry unprofitable
for the capitalist, and so succeed in taking it over
for themselves,1 they might still remain, from the
point of view of the community as a whole, a pro¬
fiteering body, with economic interests quite likely
to conflict with those of the whole mass of producers
and consumers. They might have acquired, by
direct action, the valuable property which now belongs
to the coal-owners ; but, if that property is to be
used in the interests of the whole people, it must
belong not to a section, but to the community. Guild
profiteering may be better than the private capitalist ;
biit it is not Socialism, and there is no guarantee of
its acting equitably. The object of Socialism is to
sweep away profiteering altogether, and to use the work
of all in the interests of all ; the object is emphatically
not to entrench the coal-miners in the place of the
coal-owners.

Even then, if direct action could bring about revolu¬
tion, there would be dangers involved in its use.
Expropriation is a matter for common, and not for
sectional, action ; the control of the producer over
industry ought to act as a co-ordinating, and not as
a disintegrating force. In speaking of the General
Strike, we saw that, if it were possible, it would be
unnecessary, because the community could do its
work far better.2 But we also saw that there is very

1 See The Miners’ Next Step , and cf. Chapter VIII. of this
book.

2 Cf. Chapter VI.

ECONOMICS AND POLITICS

407

little chance of the General Strike becoming possible :
it presupposes such a standard of education among
the workers that bureaucracy would have lost all its
dangers. A democracy so educated would be per¬
fectly capable of controlling its rulers ; and it will
hardly be disputed that, in such a case, political and
industrial action would go hand in hand, and national
ownership would be realised together with producers’
control.

Similarly, it is inconceivable that, even in a single
industry, the workers should reach such a stage as to
be ready and fitted to take over the control of industry
before the State has actually stepped in and national¬
ised that service. To make such encroachments on
Capitalism, the Union would have to be enormously
strong ; but, having reached such strength, it would
have to make its demand of the State. There is
this further difficulty. The theory that industry
will be syndicalised by gradual encroachments on the
emplovers always assumes that the private employer
will still exist. But it is absolutely certain that, long
before the Miners are in a position to make any com¬
plete demand for control, the mines will have been
nationalised. It is of the State that they will have to
make their demand, and it will suit their purpose
far better to persuade the State to grant it than to
fight the State for it. Political action will go hand in
hand with economic action in developing the new
method of control.

Of course, this does not mean that the method of
gradual encroachment is not right up to a point. The
Unions will fit themselves for their partnership in
control with the State by strengthening their organisa¬
tion and making increasing demands upon the capi¬
talist. They may well have a firm foothold in control

408

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

before the State takes over the industry. But this does
not alter the essential nature of the process : sooner or
later, the}/ will find themselves face to face with the
State, and, for both parties, friendly co-operation will
be far more advantageous than internecine warfare.
If nationalisation is to mean a change of heart as well
as a change in business methods, the State and the
Unions must co-operate in bringing about the new
commonwealth of industry.

The Unions, therefore, will have need of the State
when they address themselves to the task of democ¬
ratising industry. But will not the State, equally,
have need of the Unions ? It is not difficult to see
how real this need, too, will be. Nationalised to-day,
no industry could help being run, in the main, very
like any capitalist enterprise. The Unions have
neither the character, nor the will, to co-operate in
management. They have evolved neither the struc¬
ture, nor the government, nor the men required for
such a task. Before the State can hope to relieve
itself of the industrial burden, the Unions must have
become far stronger, more cohesive, and more self-
reliant. It is all to the State’s interest that the
Unions to-day should exercise every possible pressure
upon the capitalist and upon itself, if by so doing they
may develop the new powers which are essential to
their proper functioning in the future.

It is still the accepted theory among politicians
that the less the State interferes with industry the
better. Like the demand for ‘ social peace,’ this view
has a solid foundation of common sense. Social war
has no business within the State, and the State has no
business in industry. But in both cases it is mere
wilful hypocrisy to blink the facts. If the State has
no business in industry, neither has the capitalist—

ECONOMICS AND POLITICS

4°9

and the State must help to turn him out. If there
ought not to be a class-war, neither ought there to be
classes — and the State must help to sweep them away.
The State has to go into industry to set it in order ; and
then it has to come out. Laissez faire is only justified
when things are going well ; for the present muddle
and injustice, drastic interference alone is adequate.

This view, of course, is directly in conflict with the
expressed theory of most Syndicalists. The State,
they tell us, must be destroyed root and branch ; it
must not only be cleared out of industry, but abolished
altogether. The producers, organised in Industrial
Unions, Trades Councils and in a General Federation
of Trade Unions and Trades Councils, are perfectly
capable of carrying on the whole work of the nation.

The view has been already expressed that, generally
speaking, Syndicalism is right in what it asserts, and
wrong in what it denies, and that, in the industrial
sphere, it has hold of the valuable, truth that industry
should be run by the producer for the consumer,
and that the consumer should not perpetually stand
over the producer with a whip giving his orders. But
Syndicalism tends to neglect the equally important
truth that industry should not be run by the producer
for the producer, and that the producer should not
perpetually present a pistol at the consumer’s head,
and proclaim that unless the consumer pays his
price, no commodities will be forthcoming. Even
in industry the consumer has a function ; for he
consumes the fruits of industry, and has a right
to get them at a just price. Outside industry, in
the general business of government, the case against
Syndicalism is overwhelmingly stronger. The modern
world has got industry on the brain, and can think
of nothing else ; when it has asserted that the

410

TITE WORLD OF LABOUR

State has no function in industry, it believes that
this involves denying the State any function at all.
But the preoccupation of the State with industrial
questions is a mere phase in its development, caused
mainly by the Industrial Revolution and the advent
of machine-production. As the State gets clear of the
meshes of industrialism in which the nineteenth century
caught it fast, new State functions will emerge, and
it will be seen more clearly that politics are wider than
economics. Industrialism has stunted the State’s
growth : it has fed it on the unwholesome diet of the
class-war, and let it into a premature decay. But if
once the incubus of industrialism could be removed,
the State would recover its health, and begin once
again to give expression to the spirit of community
and nationality which pervades every people whose
national life is sound. Could the control of industry
be handed over to the producers, and could all pro¬
fiteering be eliminated, the State would be set free
to work for the deepening of national life, for the
realisation of a greater joy and a greater individu¬
ality. It would be liberated to work for the
liberation of energy, instead of being preoccupied
with the sordid task of patching up a false social
truce and concealing the bankruptcy of the national
life fund.

Two examples must suffice. The lot of a Minister
of Education at the present day is not a happy one.
Everybody knows that the nation is under-educated,
and that, if Great Britain is losing ground, it is because
the minds of her citizens are not allowed to develop.
Yet no Cabinet and no Parliament is prepared to
provide the money needed for making our national
education worthy of a great people.

There is no Minister of Health ; but this is not

ECONOMICS AND POLITICS

411

because the people is too healthy to need one. It is
generally admitted that the greater part of the misery,
the poverty, the drunkenness and the crime that
poison our national life can be directly traced to
disease and underfeeding. Yet no Cabinet and no
Parliament will stir a finger to alter all this. It would
cost too much. Instead of a great measure for the
prevention of disease and destitution, we have the
miserable Insurance Act passed to make the worker
pay for patching him up when his ailments impair his
industrial efficiency.

This sort of neglect is enough to account for the
attitude of Syndicalists towards the State. The
State has done nothing to deserve their respect ; and
no very encouraging answer can be given when they
ask what prospect there is of its reformation. But
the one state of mind that, however intelligible it
may be, is never pardonable is social despair ; and
the attitude which the Syndicalists have taken up is,
in effect, an abandonment of the problem. We must
have the State to carry on crusades for the improve¬
ment of public education and public health ; and,
however scandalous the State’s neglect of these things
may be, the remedy lies, not in abolishing, but in
reforming it. The Syndicalists are right in thinking
that the Trade Unions are the most powerful instru¬
ments for the education of the people ; they are
wrong in thinking that they will end by destroying
the State.

Economic action, then, is the first thing now, in
order that political action may become the first thing
hereafter. Educated in the Unions, the workers
must learn to conquer the still greater association of
which all, men and women alike, are members. They
must not despair of the problem, or seek to sweep

412

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

away the State, merely because it has strayed from
its proper purpose. They must realise that it is the
State’s business to distribute wealth and to arrange
services, to provide for the well-being of the whole,
and to afford every individual full means of self-
expression. Economics will then be seen as only
a branch of the true politics, by means of which the
people co-ordinates and controls the whole life of the
body politic, while it leaves to every part full freedom
to express itself in the service of the whole.

CHAPTER XIV

HOPES AND FEARS

It is sadly easy to grow sceptical of the future. Weary
of idealists who refuse to consider the present because
their eyes are fixed upon a distant goal, most men
refuse to believe that it is even possible to say any¬
thing sensible about the remoter future. They bid
us stick to facts, because facts alone offer solid ground.
It is indeed true that what we have to say of the
future can only be worth saying if we link it up with
the present, if we show it to be at least a possible
development of Society as we actually know it :
mere idealism is not of practical value. But surely
it is impossible to see the brute facts of the present
in their true order and import, unless we somehow
arrange them for ourselves, as links in a long chain
of development of which the present is but a frag¬
ment. Seen in this light, great things will often
grow small, and small things great ; and we shall
find, in some little fact, some cloud the size of a
man’s hand, the promise of the ‘ great change ’.

It is a duty, as well as an impulse, to refuse to

believe that the present system can continue for

ever, that the future will go on being like the past,

that the capitalist will eternally exploit, and Labour

be eternally exploited. Such a view is the last

‘ despair of the republic ’, a despair which we may

413

4i4

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

forgive, but cannot approve. For after all education
is spreading, and Labour is slowly waking up to a
sense of its power and its responsibilities ; and with
enlightenment must surely come at any rate the will
to sweep the present system away. Its continuance
is a matter of will, or rather of its absence ; we cannot
hope to shake off the burden of profiteering until
we have shaken off our lethargy and, with clear
heads, willed the substitution of something better.
The State cannot be more advanced than the citizens :
its General Will is but the reflection of their wills,
and as their wills are good and lofty in aim, the State
will realise a higher good for all its members. You
cannot make men good or happy by Act of Parlia¬
ment ; but it is equally certain that men can make
themselves happy by such Acts : the goodness and
happiness of the State depend on the goodness and
happiness of its members. Will is, in the last resort,
the basis of the State, which can succeed only if
there is an organised goodwill behind it.

If, then, we are asked what chance there is of
Trade Unionism undergoing such changes of heart,
function, structure and power as we have outlined,
we shall dare to answer that there is every hope.
The signs of an altering and an increasing demand
on the part of the Unions may be small, but they
are unmistakable : at present mostly unrealised,
they are bound to become conscious and deliberate.
The sphere of Trade Union action cannot permanently
recede ; every inch of footing gained in the control
of industry is gained for ever. The Unions are bound
to go on widening their demands, whether under the
influence of a conscious theory or not ; new disputes
will arise, and, in a particular quarrel, a general
principle will be established before either side has

HOPES AND FEARS

4i5

realised its full significance. This is what happened
in the Knox strike of 1912 on the North-Eastern
Railway : it was a strike, not for the ‘ right to get
drunk but for the right of the workers to stand
by one another in case of injustice, for their right
to reject the verdict of authority in the workshop
on a question of ‘ discipline It was by no means
the first strike of its kind ; but it focused public
attention, and established the principle : its influence
can be seen in the large number of similar strikes
that have followed it.

Mr. Alexander Siemens, one of the employers on
the Industrial Council, presenting a short memor¬
andum of his own which is, in effect, a minority
report, said very wisely that, on questions of principle,
it is no use to call in an ‘ impartial ’ tribunal to decide
between the two parties. Questions of principle at
least will never be settled by arbitration ; they are
material for a fight to the finish, and the State must
either settle them by legislating in favour of one
side against the other, or must leave the two to fight
it out. The readiness of Labour to fight in just such
cases as these is the most hopeful indication that
there really is something positive behind the Labour
revolt. It may have begun merely because the shoe
pinched — its first aim may have been merely to bring
real wages back to the old level ; but there are signs
that, now Labour has tasted blood, it will not go
quite calmly to sleep again. It is the business of
idealists to make the most of all the unrest there is ;
and, by this means, there is hope that the seed they
sow will bear fruit, and that Labour will at last set
its feet steadfastly on the road that leads to the
control of industry.

It is generally possible to tell a ‘ practical idealist '

416

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

from a ‘ practical man ’ by his view about the ‘ aboli¬
tion of the wage system For the idealist, the
phrase sums up perfectly what he is after, the destruc¬
tion of the system whereby one man buys the life
and labour of another for his own profit. The practical
man thinks the idealist is answered when he has
told him that men must always be paid for services
done and must always draw their pay periodically ;
whether then it be called wages or something else
seems to him indifferent. The whole argument he
regards as beating the air ; he prefers to concentrate
on ‘ a more efficient distribution of wealth ’ to talking
‘ airy nonsense ’ about the wage system.

Two persons as sane as Mr. and Mrs. Webb have
fallen into this fallacy in their pamphlet What
Syndicalism is. To them it appears not to matter
a jot what you call the money you receive for service
done, provided you get the money. Presumably,
it would be equally indifferent to Mr. Webb if his
weekly allowance were called ‘ hush money ’, or to
Mrs. Webb if she were paid entirely in ‘ blackmail ’.
But a wage is a wage, not because it is paid weekly,
but because of a determinate relation between him
who gives and him who receives — a relation which
makes it emphatically more blessed to give than to
receive. The cry for the ‘ abolition of the wage
system ’ is a cry for the destruction of the whole idea
that labour is a commodity, to be bought and sold
like any other commodity, that labour has its market
price, settled by supply and demand, by the higgling
of the market, or what not, and not by any idea of
human need or social justice, or even of service
rendered. It is not denied that, nowadays, labour
is treated as a commodity, and bought and sold with
regard only to the advantage of the purchaser and

HOPES AND FEARS 417

the economic need of the seller ; but it is maintained
that this state of things is wasteful, degrading and
preventible. Capitalism buys in the cheapest and
sells in the dearest market ; and it buys its labour
on exactly the same terms as its non-human com¬
modities. But essentially Labour differs in nature
from commodities, not merely because, if it is not
used, it is being wasted — that applies equally to a
machine — not merely because it may be made more
or less efficient as more or less is spent on it — that
too would apply to a factory as a whole, and not
merely to the labour in it — but because it is human,
and the value of humanity is not a market value,
though humanity may have, in a bad social system,
a market price. The wage system must be abolished
in the sense that it must be made impossible merely
to buy labour as cheaply as possible, irrespective of
its need or service ; instead, Labour must share
fairly in what the community produces, on a basis
partly of need and partly of service, but never of
market price.

The abolition of the wage system was really the
question round which Mr. Bernard Shaw and Mr.
Belloc spent so many wingless words in their famous
debate last year. There was the spectacle of an old
idealist tamed by the ' practical men ’ of the Fabian
Society meeting an unpractical man who had de¬
spaired of the State. The debate centred round the
meaning of the word ' service.’ When Mr. Belloc said
that we were moving towards the Servile State, Mr.
Shaw rejoined that exactly what he wanted was to be
allowed to ‘ serve ’ the community. Mr. Belloc
extolled the virtues of freedom, Mr. Shaw those of
ministration. But on the real point the two disputants
never came to grips ; they never really got down to
27

418

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

discussing what makes the essential difference between
service and servility, between a ' servant of the public '
and a slave of the State. Mr. Shaw pointed out, very
rightly, that the Servile State is with us here and now :
Mr. Belloc retaliated that nationalisation would not
abolish it. Both, in fact, were out for the abolition of
the wage-system ; the public slave is a commodity,
the public servant a man. The slave is absolutely
in the power of his master ; the servant of the public
is free to serve, within limits, on his own terms, and
to do the State the service for which he is most fitted.
He takes his pay as a partner in the enterprise ; he
shares in its prosperity and suffers when it fails ; his
service is rendered not to a human superior, but to the
great family of which he is a member. The wage-slave,
on the other hand, has no share in the enterprise ; his
standard of life is fixed, and does not vary with the
national prosperity ; his service is sold to a superior,
who uses it for his own benefit and not for that of the
community at large.

It is easy to see what a difference the substitution
of a personal for a purely financial relation throughout
State service would bring about in the whole com¬
plexion of the workers’ lives. The ‘ incentive to
labour ’ is an incentive to bad labour ; the relation
between employer and employed is purely a ‘ busi¬
ness ’ relation, and in ‘ business ’ the practice “ is
giving too little and asking too much”. Both sides
inevitably try to get as much as they can and to give
as little as they can for it : it is only the accident of
situation that makes the egoism of Labour just, and
the egoism of the employer unjust. The everlasting
continuance of the wage-system would mean the
impossibility of substituting a nobler motive. Mr.
Shaw is as keen for the abolition as Mr. Belloc ; he

HOPES AND FEARS

419

goes farther, and demands equal payment for all.
Ultimately, he is clearly right ; as long as unequal
payment continues, the wage system continues to
a certain extent ; but an enormous step would have
been made towards its entire abolition were payment
made according to need and service, and not according
to market-value. Standards of life are still too various
for equality ; they are not too various for a greater
measure of justice and equalisation.

Since the industrial system began, reaction has
always sheltered itself behind the demand for an
incentive to Labour. There has been no sadder
spectacle in the world than that of William Morris,
an almost isolated figure in the Socialist movement,
pleading for a nobler conception of human nature.
Where work is bad and done for an unworthy master,
there can be no incentive save gain ; where work is
noble and joyous it is its own incentive. But, we are
told, all work cannot be like that. Most men are
bound to mind machines, and do dull labour for hire ;
the few, the artists, the craftsmen and the skilled brain¬
workers, may indeed find a joy in labour which comes
from the sense of successful self-expression ; but such
joys are not for the many. It must not be forgotten,
however, that there are two sides to the gospel of joy
in labour ; the work may itself be so obviously fine and
stimulating that no man who takes to it can lack an
incentive to do his best ; but even where the task is not
so thrilling, there is a noble stimulus to good workman¬
ship that comes from the sense of co-operation and
responsibility. Co-partnership of the better sort is
possible in private industry only because even an
illusory sense of responsibility works wonders. A man
who feels that he is not merely so much raw material
to be used up in the process of manufacture will put

420

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

his back into his work because he is conscious that it is
his work. Not the sense of ownership, but the sense
of responsibility, is the secret of the success of the
small agriculturalist in Denmark and Ireland. The
sense of being owned is deadening ; the sense of posses¬
sion means, not so much that a man desires to have
the title-deeds of his estate, as that he desires to work
for himself and the community and not for a private
master to whom he is nothing and who is nothing to
him.

Morris, therefore, was fundamentally right in
appealing for the restoration to the worker of his ‘ joy
in labour ’ as the sole means of bringing about ‘ the
great change ’. But the joy is not impossible without
the abandonment of machine-production : a man may
take a joy in his machine, if he is its master instead
of its servant. The ordinary tasks of the ordinary man
can in great measure be brightened and made happy
by the influx of a new spirit of co-operation ; but the
new spirit cannot come unless every worker can be
made to feel, in some degree, responsible for the work
he has to do. The Syndicalist movement has produced
no more inspiring document than a little pamphlet
issued by M. Gabriel Beaubois about the time of the
great French Postal Strike. La Crise Postale et les
Monopoles d’ £tat is a plea for the extension to all the
workers in every grade of the service of just that sense
of responsibility for which bureaucratic management
allows no room. In the postal service, the Government
has to do, for the most part, with men of a high standard
of intelligence ; yet, in practice, even the details of
management are highly centralised, and red tape
trammels the action of every grade of actual workers.
Local initiative is crushed out ; rule and method are
carried to ridiculous extremes, and dictated absolutely

HOPES AND FEARS

421

by the central office. No one, except the high officials
who pull the red tapes, is allowed a chance of express¬
ing his individuality in his daily work. M. Beaubois
shows how, in a thousand and one ways, the actual
worker could economise time and effort and make the
service more effective, and he has shown how little
national enterprise does to encourage individual enter¬
prise on the part of those whom it employs. Much
of what he says would apply equally to our English
Post Office, though it is said that here an attempt at
some measure of devolution is already being made.

It is no wonder that many thinkers turn away from
nationalisation in disgust when they see how little
national enterprise differs, as a rule, from private
enterprise. But those who oppose nationalisation on
the ground that it will bring about the Servile State
make two mistakes : they regard the State of the
present as something fixed and unalterable ; and they
reckon without the Trade Unions.

The badness of the State to-day is easily explained
by the weakness of the popular will behind it. But
if the State can be captured by one side it can be
captured by the other also. The State of the future will
not be the centralised bureaucratic mechanism of
to-day; it will be the alert and flexible instrument of the
General Will. New methods of democratic govern¬
ment will be evolved, and, instead of the abstract
democracy of the ballot-box, there will be a real
democracy aiming not at increasing continually the
absoluteness of its control, but at delegating functions
to self-governing bodies within itself, and at the same
time harmonising their activities with the good of the
whole. Parliamentary devolution by means of the
Committee system, administrative devolution by the
granting of wider powers to local and ad hoc authorities,

422

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

and industrial devolution, making the Trade Union a
self-governing producing unit, will go hand in hand.
Even the few first steps that are being made in this
direction, the growth in the functions of the Estimates
Committee of the House of Commons, the establish¬
ment of bodies like the Road Board and the Develop¬
ment Commission, and the beginnings of friendly
co-operation with the workers in some Government
dockyards, are enough to remove much of the terror
that is often felt by Socialists lest they should only
entrench State Capitalism and bureaucracy. Until
the workers are themselves captured for progress and
until they set about the task of really moulding the
political machine to suit their fancy, the danger will
remain ; but every sign of awakening on the part of the
workers makes it less. Instead of the reformist Labour
Party, there is hope that some day we shall have a
revolutionary party imbued, not with the spirit of
blind revolt, but with a real consciousness of what
the State must be made.

In the task of educating the workers up to this
point, as well as in preparing themselves for the
control of industry, the Trade Unions have, as we
saw, a great part to play. Nationalisation will be
barren, save as a business proposition, unless the
Unions see to it that they are given a share in control.
But it is equally true that, unless politically the
Unions help to frame the nationalisation policy of
the State, they will find it very hard to secure the
consideration of their claims. Through political
action, the workers have to secure that the Govern¬
ment shall grant the demands of the Unions, as fast
as the Unions lit themselves for the functions of
control. The worker will strike with his companions,
when he will not vote with them ; and the strike has

HOPES AND FEARS

423

to be used as a method of political conviction. The
Trade Unions must convince their members of the
functions the State has to perform in relation to
them ; before a political party subsidised by them
can get any real strength, it must have behind it the
effective backing of the Unions. A Labour Party at
present ought to regard its function as subsidiary
to that of Trade Unionism ; and it should be always
on the alert for a chance of helping the workers in
their economic struggle. As soon as, in becoming
political, it ceases to be mainly economic in outlook,
its hold over the workers is gone, and it loses touch
with the rank and file. On such terms no political
party can hope to increase and multiply and replenish

the earth.

We have followed up the main lines of thought
that are now stirring the Unions in this country,
because in them, far more than in any recent legis¬
lative enactments, is to be found the key to the future
development alike of our industry and of our national
life. It is only important, in conclusion, to emphasise
once more the essential unity of the problem. The
history of foreign Labour movements is important to
us because France, America, Germany, and Sweden
have been facing problems largely similar to our
own. In studying their theory and practice we are
learning useful lessons to guide us m the under¬
standing of the Labour movement in Great Britain.
We passed then to a survey of the pressing problems
of Trade Unionism at the present day, and saw how
essential to their success in the daily struggle against
the employer is reorganisation of the Unions, in
respect both of structure and of internal government
and control. We then turned to the relation of
present-day Trade Unionism to the State of to-day,

424

THE WORLD OF LABOUR

and saw the danger lurking in specious proposals for
immediate social peace and justice. We laid stress
on the fact that the class-war is real, and that no
solution which ignores or denies it can be accepted
by those who are trodden beneath the cloven hoof
of Capital. In the light of this view, we rejected
certain false proposals for social reconstruction.

We then took a leap into the future, and, throughout
the remainder of the book, discussed more general
problems of the future function of the State and the
future control of industry, in the light of what we
had said of the present, but with the object of taking
a wider outlook upon it than our merely practical
consideration had afforded us. Especially in the
chapters on ‘ The Future of Trade Unionism ’ and on
‘ Economics and Politics ’, we tried to bridge the
gulf between the present and the future, in so far
as it can be bridged without the useless elaboration
of prophecies that are sure to come false. And, at
the close, we reaffirmed our faith in the future of
the State as the expression of the General Will of
the people, and in the Trade Union movement as
the great force by which almost alone, for the present,
progress can be truly furthered. The Unions, we
saw, reorganised and co-ordinated, cannot indeed
supplant the State, but may become the instruments
of the State’s reformation and the controllers of the
processes of industry in the future. Above all, we
have seen that, if Trade Unionism is to accomplish
its purpose, it must not be content to appeal to the
blind ‘ instinct ’ that is urging it forward. That
' instinct ’ is present ; but if it is to achieve anything,
it must gain consciousness and intelligence. The
intelligent capitalist can make short work of the
elan vital of the workers, unless it is translated into

HOPES AND FEARS

425

a definite will. The State is, at best, only as good
as the citizens ; and the citizens, would they but
realise their power, can make it what they will. The
' sleeping giant ’ needs waking up ; but when he
wakes up he will need intellectual quickening as well.
The present muddle in the world of Labour comes
partly from lack of intellectual opportunity, but
partly from intellectual indolence ; the slave can
only throw off his chains by showing himself a better
man than his master. Education and the Greater
Unionism have the task before them of making the
worker realise his position and the remedy. If they
can do this, they will not merely destroy Capitalism ;
they must not cease

“Till they have built Jerusalem
In England’s green and pleasant land.”

f

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The most important books are marked with a star (*).

Belloc, Hilaire
Cadbury, Edward

Chesterton, G. K.
Holmes, Edmond

Kropotkin, Peter

Lagardelle, Hubert
Marx, Karl
Morris, William

*Paul-Boncour, J.

Rousseau, J. J. .
Ruskin, John .

*Sorel, Georges
*

Ware, Eabian .

CHAPTER I

The Servile State. 1912. is.

Experiments in Industrial Organisation.
1912. 5s.

What’s Wrong With the World. 1911. is.
What Is and What Might Be. 1912.
4s. 6d.

Fields, Factories and Workshops, is.
Mutual Aid. is.

The Conquest of Bread, is.

Le Socialisme Ouvrier. 1911. 3 fr. 50.

Capital. 3 volumes. 31s. 6d.

A Dream of John Ball. 2s.

News from Nowhere, is.

Hopes and Fears for Art. 5s.

Architecture, Industry and Wealth. 6s.
Signs of Change. 5s.

A Factory as it Might Be (pamphlet), id.
Useful Work versus Useless Toil (pamphlet),
id.

I.e Federalisme Iiconomique. 1902. 6 fr.

Les Syndicats de Fonctionnaires. 1908.
80 cent.

The Social Contract, is.

The Nature of Gothic, with an Introduction
by William Morris, is.

La Decomposition du Marxisme. 80 cent.
Reflexions sur la Violence. 6 fr.

The Worker and his Country. 5s.

427

428

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CHAPTER II

Daily Citizen
Daily Herald
Daily Mail

Henderson, Fred
Hyndman, II. M.

Mann, Tom ,

Money, L. G. Chiozza
* New Age .

New Statesman .

New Witness
Snowden, Philip
Tillett, Ben

T imes

Watney, J., and
Little, J. A. .

1912-15.

1:912-15 (now the Herald).

What the Worker Wants (reprinted articles).
1912. 6d.

The Labour Unrest. 1912. 2s. 6d.
Socialism and Labour Unrest (pamphlet).
1912. id.

The Industrial Syndicalist (12 pamphlets).

1911. id. and 2d. each.

From Single Tax to Syndicalism. 1913.
is.

Riches and Poverty. 1910. is.

Weekly. 6d.

Weekly. 6d.

Weekly. 6d.

The Living Wage. 1912. is.

The 1911 Transport Workers’ Strike. 1912
6d.

Labour and Industry (reprinted articles).
1913- is.

Industrial Warfare. 1912. 5s.

CHAPTERS III-IV

Antoneli.i, L. . .La Democratic Sociale devant les Idees

Presentes. 1911.

. Les Nouveaux Aspects du Socialisme. 1908.

. Le Socialisme et les Jaunes. 1906.

. Syndicalisme et Democratic. 1908.

. La Grdve Generale. 1905.

• Syndicalisme Revolutionnaire et Syndical-
isme Rcformiste. 1909.

. Les Bourses du Travail et la C.G.T.

. Les Orientations Syndicales. 1910
. Voyage Revolutionnaire. 1910.

” L’ Action Syndicaliste. 1908.

Guesde, J., Lagardelle,

H., et Vaillant, E. . Le Parti Socialiste et la C.G.T.

Berth, E.
BiStry, P.
BougiA, C.
Buisson, E.
Challaye, F.

Delesalle, P. .
Diligent, V.
*Griffuelhes, V.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

429

Hoffmann, L. .
Jay, R.

*JOUHAUX, L.
Kritsky, Mlle.

. La Greve. 1912.

. La Protection Legale des Travailleurs. 1910.
. Qu’est ce que le Contrat Collectif de
Travail ? 1908.

. Le Syndicalisme Franfais. 1913.

. L’ Evolution du Syndicalisme en France.
1908.

Lagardelle, 'Hubert.

*

it

Leroy, M.

*Levine, L.

Lewis, A. D.

La Grdve Generale et le Socialisme. 1905.
Le Socialisme Ouvrier. 1911.

Syndicats et Services Publics. 1909.

Le Code Civil et le Droit Nouveau. 1904.
Syndicalism in France. 1912. 7s. 6d.

Syndicalism and the General Strike. 1912.
7s. 6d.

Louis, Paul

>1

Mermeix .

. Histoire du Mouvement S}mdical en
France. 1907.

. Le Syndicalisme Contre 1’Ltat. 1910
. Le Syndicalisme Contre le Socialisme.
1908.

Millerand, A.
Naquet, A.
Pataud, E., et
Pouget, E.

*Paul-Boncour, J.
*

*Pelloutier, F.
Pouget, E.

. Le Socialisme Reformiste Franfais. 1903.

. L’Anarchie et le Collectivisme. 1904.

. Comment Nous Ferons la Revolution.

. Syndicalism and the Co-operative Common¬
wealth (translation of above). 1913. 2S.6d.
. Le Federalism e Economique. 1901.

. Les Syndicats de Fonctionnaires. 1906.

. Histoire des Bourses du Travail. 1902.

. See Pataud.

Proudhon, P. J.

Sorel, G. .
*

II *

. La C.G.T. 1908.

. Le Sabotage. 1910.

. Idee Generale de la Revolution.

. De la Capacitc Politique des Classes
Ouvridres. 1865.

. La Revolution Sociale.

. L’ Avenir Socialiste des Syndicats. 1901.

. La Decomposition du Marxisme. 1908.

. Les Illusions du Progrds. 1911.

. Introduction a l’Lconomie Moderne. 1911.
. La Revolution Dreyfusienne.

430

BIBLIOGRAPHY

*Sorel, G.

St. Leon, E. M. .
Stoddart, Jane T.
Vaillant, E.

Webb, S. and B. .
Yvetot, G.

Z&VAES, A.

. Reflexions sur la Violence. 1910.

. Le Compagnonnage. 1901.

. The New Socialism. 1910.

. See Guesde.

. What Syndicalism Means. 1912.

. ABC Syndicaliste. 1911.

. Le Syndicalisme Contemporain. 1912.

Adams, T. S., and
Sumner, H. L.
Barnett, G. E. .
Bohn, Frank
Brooks, J. G.
♦Carlton, F. L.

CHAPTER V

. Labor Problems. 1909.

. See Hollander.

. See Haywood.

. American Syndicalism : the I.W.W. 1913.

. History and Problems of Organised Labor.
19x1.

Commons, J. R. .

. Races and Immigrants in the United
States. 1908.

*

. A Documentary History of American
Trade Unionism.

Debs, E. V.

Deleon, D.

Ely, R. T. .

Fagan, J. O.

. Industrial Unionism (pamphlet).

. Marx v. Mallock (pamphlet). 1908.

. The Labour Movement in America. 1890.

. The Autobiography of an Individualist.

1912.

Foster, W. Z., and

Ford, E. O. . Syndicalism.

Gilman, N. P. .A Dividend to Labour. 1899.

Haywood, W. D., and

Bohn, F. . . Industrial Socialism.

Hollander, J. H., and

Barnett, G. E.

. Studies in American Trade Unionism.
1906.

Hughan, A. E. .

. American Socialism at the Present Day.
1912.

I.W.W.

♦Lawrence

. Report of First Conference. 1905.

. Report of Strike of Textile Workers at
Lawrence. 1912.

Marot, Helen .

St. John, V.
Sinclair, Upton

. American Labour Unions. 1915.

. The I.W.W. (pamphlet).

. The Industrial Republic. 1907.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

43i

Sombart, W. . . Socialism and the Social Movement (tr.).

1909.

Sumner, H. L. . . See Adams.

Trautmann, W. E. . Why Strikes are Lost, etc. (pamphlet).
Walling, W. English. Socialism as It Is. 1911.

,, . The Larger Aspects of Socialism. 1913.

,, . . Socialist Labour-Unionism and Labour-

Union Socialism.

Washington,
Booker T.

Williams, B. H.
Zimmern, A. E. .

. The Man Farthest Down in Europe.
1912.

. Eleven Blind Leaders (pamphlet).

. American Impressions ( Sociological Re
view). July 1912.

♦Anon.

Anon.

Bernstein, E. .

Buisson, E.
Lagardelle, H.
Lanzillo, A.
♦Legien, K.
Mann, Tom
Michels, R.

Morris, William
Pataud, E., et
Pouget, E. .
Por, Odon
,, and
Atkinson, F. M.
Sanders, W. S. .

CHAPTER VI

. Neunter Internationaler Bericht iiber die
Gewerkschaftsbewegung. 1912.

. Statistisches Jahrbuch des Deutsches Reich
1912.

. La Greve et le Lock-out en Allemagne
1908.

. I.a Greve Generate. 1905.

. La Greve Generate et le Socialisme. 1909.

. Le Mouvement Ouvrier en Italie.

. Die Deutsche Gewerkschaftsbewegung.

. From Single Tax to Syndicalism. 1913.

. In ‘ Syndioalisme et Socialisme ’ (H.

Lagardelle).

. News from Nowhere.

. Comment Nous Ferons la Revolution.

. Syndicalism in Action (pamphlet). 1912.

. Syndicalism ( English Review). July 1912.

. The Socialist Movement in Germany
(pamphlet). 1912.

. Industrial Organisation in Germany (New
Statesman Supplement), o.p.

. La Gr£ve et les Lock-out en Suede en 1909,
1912.

♦Sweden .

BIBLIOGRAPHY

432

CHAPTERS VII-VIII

Anon.

*Board of Trade

Kenny, Rowland
Lloyd, C. M.
Mann, Tom

. A Plea for the Amalgamation of All Existing
Trade Unions (pamphlet). 1912.

. The Miners’ Next Step (pamphlet). 1911.

. [Cd. 6109]. Report on Trade Unions,
1906-1910. 1912.

. Industrial Directory. 1913.

. [Cd. 7733]. Seventeenth Abstract of
Labour Statistics. 1915.

. Men and Rails. 1913. 5s.

. Trade Unionism. 1915. 2s. 6d.

. The Industrial Syndicalist (12 pamphlets).
1911.

Registrar of Friendly

Societies
Solidarity .
Syndicalist .

Trade Union
Congress
Tridon, A.

♦Webb, S. and B.

Report on Trade Unions. 1913.

Monthly. 1913-1914.

Monthly. 1912-1914.

Report. 1912. 6d.

The New Unionism. 1914. is.

History of Trade Unionism. 1894-1911.
7s. 6d.

. Industrial Democracy. 1897-1911. gs.

. Problems of Modern Industry. 1907. 5s.

CHAPTER IX

*Board of Trade . [Cd. 6603]. Report on the Industrial Dis¬
putes Investigation Act of Canada, 1907,
by Sir George Askwith. 1912.

,, . [Cd. 6081]. Memoranda prepared from

information in the possession of the
Labour Department relating to the text
and operation of certain Laws in the
British Dominions and Foreign Countries
affecting Strikes and Lock-outs with
especial reference to Public Utility
Services. 1912.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

433

Board of Trade . [H. C. 38]. Tenth Report of Proceedings

in 1912 under the Conciliation Act of
1896. 1913.

„ . [Cd. 6472]. Report on Strikes and Lock¬

outs and on Conciliation and Arbitration
Boards in the United Kingdom in 1911.
1912.

,, . [H. C. 134]. Memoranda in Reference to

the Working of the Trade Boards Act.
I9I3-

* ,, . Labour Gazette, monthly.

Broda, R., and

Deutsch, E. . . La Fixation Legale des Salaires. 1912.

Industrial Council. [Cd. 6952]. Report on Enquiry into

Industrial Agreements. 1913.

Knoop, D. . . . Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration.

1905.

Lloyd, H. D. . .A Country without Strikes. 1900.

*Metin, Albert . Le Socialisme sans Doctrines. 1910.
Pigou, A. C. . . Principles and Methods of Industrial

Peace. 1905.

,, . Wealth and Welfare. 1912.

Reeves, W. Pember . State Experiments in Australia and New

Zealand. 1902.

Tawney, R. H. . . Minimum Rates in the Chain-Making In¬

dustry. 1914. is. 6d.

„ . . Minimum Rates in the Tailoring Industry.

1915. 3s. 6d.

CHAPTER X

Aves, E. .
Billington-Greig, T.
Board of Trade

*

>»

Cadbury, E.
Fabian Research
Department .

Fay, C. R.
)>

Co-operative Industry. 1907.

The Consumer in Revolt. 1912.

[Cd. 6045]. Report on Industrial and
Agricultural Co-operative Societies in
the United Kingdom. 1912.

[Cd. 6496]. Report on Profit-Sharing and
Labour Co-partnership. 1912.
Experiments in Industrial Organisation.

Co-operative Production and The Co¬
operative Movement (1914) (New States¬
man Supplements).

Co-partnership in Industry. 1913.
Co-operation at Home and Abroad. 1908.

28

434

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Labour Co-partner¬
ship Association
Lloyd, H. D.
Munsterburg, H.

Pease, E. R.

♦Schloss, S. D. .

*Webb, Beatrice
Webb, Catherine
Webb, Sidney .

Williams, Aneurin

Beaubois, G.

Booth, C. .

Clay, Sir A.
Davies, Emil

Fabian Researcpi
Department .

Harley, J. H. .
Lewis, A. D.

Macdonald, J. R.
Mann, J. E. F.,
Sievers, N. J., and
Cox, R. W. T..
Mann, Tom

Marx, Karl
Orage, A. R. (editor)

. Pamphlets, leaflets, etc.

, Labour Co-partnership. 1898.

. Psychology and Industrial Efficiency.
1913. 5s.

. Co-partnership and Profit-Sharing, a Fraud
and a Failure ? (pamphlet). 1913. id.

. Methods of Industrial Remuneration. 1907.
3s. 6d.

. The Co-operative Movement. 1899. 2s. 6d.
. Industrial Co-operation. 1910. 2S. 6d.

„ The Place of Co-operation in the State of
To-morrow (pamphlet). 1913. id.

, Co-partnership and Profit-Sharing. 1914.
is.

CHAPTERS XI-XIV

. La Crise Postale et les Monopoles d’Ltat.
1908.

. Industrial Unrest and Trade Union Policy.
1914. 2d.

. Syndicalism and Labour. 1911. is.

. The Case for Railway Nationalisation.
1913. is.

. The Collectivist State in the Making. 1914.
5s-

. State and Municipal Enterprise (New
Statesman Supplement). 1915.

. Syndicalism. 1912. 6d.

. Syndicalism and the General Strike. 1912.
7s. 6d.

. Syndicalism. 1912. is.

. The Real Democracy. 1913. 5s.

. From Single Tax to Syndicalism. 1913.
is.

. Capital.

. National Guilds. 1914. 5s.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

435

Pataud, E., et
PoUGET, E.

Pelloutier, F. .
Penty, A. J.

Pratt, E. A.
*Renard, Georges

Robinson, M. F.
Shadwell, A. .

Snowden, Philip
Wallas, Graham

*Webb, S. and B.

. Comment Nous Ferons la Revolution.

. Syndicalism and the Co-operative Common¬
wealth (translation of above). 1913.

2S. 6d.

. Histoire des Bourses du Travail. 1902.

. The Restoration of the Guild System.
1906. o.p.

. The Restoration of the Guild Sj^stem
(articles in New Age). 1913.

. The Case against Railway Nationalisation.
1913. is.

. Syndicats, Trades Unions et Corporations.
1909.

. (English translation in preparation.) 5s.

. The Spirit of Association. 1913. 5s.

. Syndicalism (in Nelson’s Encyclopaedia of
Industrialism). 1913. is.

. Socialism and Syndicalism. 1913. is.

. Syndicalism (in Sociological Review). July
1912.

* Industrial Democracy. 1897-1911. gs.

. What Syndicalism Means. 1912. 2d.

•t

*

*

INDEX

ABC Syndicalists, by G. Yvetot,
1 1 2.

Ablett, Noah, 277.

Action Syndicate, L’ , by Barthou,
59, 117-

Agitation, 37.

Agreements, 77, 79, 153, 193,
216, 267, 281 ff., 301, 307:0,,
310 0., 329, 374.

Agriculture, 40.

Allemane, 64.

Amalgamated Society of Engin¬
eers, 210, 214, 221, 226 0., 244,
253 f., 262, 278.

Amalgamation, 161, 215, 217,
219 0., 236, 252 0., 273.

America, 57, 95, 96, Ch. V., 202,
211, 24I, 294, 321, 325 0., 348,
423-

American Federation of Labour,
135, 136 ff-, 14B 151. 158 ff-

American Impressions, by A. E.
Zimmern, 131.

Anarchism, 4, 89, 90, 95, 124,
199, 200, 203, 274, 351, 367.

Anti-militarism, 91, 120, 196.

Anti-patriotism, 91.

Anti-sweating League, 304.

Appleton, W. A., 244, 279-80,

374- 0 „

Arbitration, 40, 48, 49, 56, 285 ff.,
Ch. IX.

Askwith, Sir G., 49, 288, 294,
297-8, 307 ff., 317.

Associations of Employers,
185 ff., 290.

Atkinson, F. M., 167-8.

Australia, 40.

Avenir Socialiste des Syndicats,
L’, by Sorel, 67, 87.

Balfour, A. J., 20, 394.

Barthou, Louis, 59, 117.

Bataille Syndicalists, 118.
Beaubois, Gabriel, 124, 420.
Belgium, 43, 122, 195, 342.
Belloc, Hilaire, 4, 14, 417.
Bergson, Henri, 4.

Berth, Edouard, 90, 93, 97, 200,

367-

Billington-Greig, Teresa, 341.
Black Country Strikes, 47, 403.
Blacklegs, 55, 108, 133, 376.
Board of Trade, 35, 60.

Bohn, F. See Industrial Social¬
ism.

Boilermakers, 218, 221, 227,

254-

Bottle-blowers (Italian), 168.
Bournville, 324.

Bourses du Travail, 62, 64-7, 69,
71, 73, 80, 81, 98, 109, hi,
114, 115-9, 154. 246. 353-
Bourses du Travail, Federation
des, 65-6, 68, 1 1 7.

Boycott, 97.

Briand, 201.

British Socialist Party, 399.
Brooklands Agreement, 209.
Brousse, Paul, 64.

Building Unions, 265 ff., 270,
273-

Burns, John, 40.

Ca’ canny, 95.

Cadbury, Edward, 12, 320, 324-
5- 379-

Canada, 49, 294 ff., 307.
Capitalism, 345-6, 348 f.
Carpenters and Joiners, 228, 266,
267.

Centralisation, 176-182, 241,

246 ff., Ch. VIII.

437

438

INDEX

Chapelier, 62.

Chartism, 21.

Chasse aux renards, 108.

Checkweighmen, 384.

Cheminots de I’Est, 62.

Chesterfield election, 396 f., 399.

Chesterton, G. K., 14, 365.

Christian Socialists, 9, 332, 387.

Christian Unions (Germany),
170 ff.

Class-representation, 21, Ch.
XIII.

Class-struggle, 21, 88, 125, Ch.
IX., 370, 391-2, 394, 424.

Clynes, J. R., 235.

Coal-strike, 1.

Collectivism, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 17,
54, Ch. XI., 378 f-

Comite d’ Union Syndicalists, 90,

Commune, Paris, 63.

Communism, 124, 200, 274.

Compagnonnage , 23, 63.

Competition, 348-9.

Compulsory arbitration, 287, 288,
290 ft. , 308 ff.

Compulsory Conciliation, 294 ff.

,, Trade Unionism,

37i f-

Conciliation, 48, 104, 153, 216,
267, 281 ff., Ch. IX., 305.

Conciliation Act, 290, 294, 315 f.

Confederation Generate du Tra¬
vail, 60, 61, Ch. III. -IV., 129,
148, 246, 387, 389.

Confederation Generate du Tra¬
vail Income, 81.

Confederation Generate du Tra¬
vail Statutes, 69.

Confederation Generate du Tra¬
vail, Strength of, 71.

Conseils du Travail, 67.

Consumers, 6, 7, 340 ff., 353 ff.,
Ch. XI., 409.

Contributions, 253-4.

Control of Industry, 7, 56, 340,
343, Chs. XI.-XII., 394, 406 f.

Co-operation, 6, 29, 80, 109, 122,
201, 206, 210, 337, 338-43, 345.

Co-operation of Producers, 168,
332. 336. 337 ff.

Co-operative Union, 341.

Co-operative Wholesale Society,
7. 336, 337. 338, 340, {342 f.,
345-

Co-operative Wholesale Society
Bank, 343.

Co-partnership, 285, 320, 328-37,

419.

Co-partnership from the Em¬
ployer’s Point of View, 334 ff.
Co-partnership Tenants, 336.
Cornwall, 289.

Cotton industry, 216, 218, 247 ff.,
273. 323. 37*.

Cradley Heath, 47.

Craft Unionism, 47, 56, in, 135,
139, 212 ff.

Crise Postale et les Monopoles
d’Etat, by G. Beaubois, 124,

420.

Daily Citizen, 50, 221, 397.

Daily Herald, 3, 4, 51, 221, 261,
279-80, 399.

Daily Mail, 53.

Debs, Eugene, 151.

Deleon, Daniel, 142, 162.
Demarcation, 218, 255.

Denmark, 420.

Development Commission, 366,
380, 421.

Devolution, 24, 380, 421.
Diligent, V., 59.

Dilke, Sir C., 303.

Direct Action, 85, 93.

Discipline, 54, 327, 334, 382.
Disputes, Trade, 8, 54.

Dock Strikes (1889), 40.

,, (1911), 41, 107.

,, (1912), 107.

Doctors and Insurance Act, 364.
Dublin, 289.

Dyson, Will, 51.

Economic Federalism, 28.
Education, 16-19, 384, 410, 425.
Eight Hours’ Day, 78, 85.

£lan vital, 4, 424.

Eleven Blind Leaders, by B. H.

Williams, 140.

Employers’ Associations, 6.
Engineering, 227 ff.

,, Federation, 218.
Engineers' Journal, 40.

English Review, 167.

Ettor, Joseph, 148.

Experiments in Industrial Organ¬
isation, by E. Cadbury, 12, 324.

INDEX

Fabian Society, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 399,
417-

Factory Acts, 353.

Federalism in the C.G.T.,
7°-

F&deralisme Economique, Le, by
J. Paul-Boncour, 59.

Federation, 40, 137, 215 fl., 235,
247 ft., 271 ff.

Ferri, Enrico, 88.

Fields, Factories and Workshops,
12.

Ford. See Syndicalism, by E. C.
Ford.

Foster, W. Z., 141, 157, 161.

France, 26, 31, 57, Chs. III.
and IV., 128, 179, 211, 259,
261, 274, 344, 351, 379, 387,
423-

Free Contract, 273.

French Revolution, 22, 58.

From Single Tax to Syndicalism,
by Tom Mann, 41.

Garden City Fress, 336.

Gas Companies, 332-3.

Geldart, W. M., 282.

General Federation of Trade
Unions, 72, 120, 198, 243 ff.,

279, 374-

General Labour Unions, 220, 222,
226, 231, 234 ff., 238 ff., 245,
266, 306.

General Strike, 77, 80, 93, 94,
106, 179, 193-204, 342, 406.
General Will, 23, 29, 414, 421,

424.

George, D. Lloyd, 375, 397-
Germany, 61, 105, 121, 169—82,
197, 202, 232, 238, 247, 259,

280, 342, 379, 423.

Giovanitti, 149.

Gompers, S., 136, 159, 160.
Gosling, H., 390.

Greater Unionism, 47, 56, 73,
176, 179, 214, 257 f., 260, 272,
274, 284, 351, 377, 392, 404,

425.

Griffuelhes, V., 67, 74, 77, 85, 89,
101-2, 107, 113.

Guerard, 75.

Guesde, Jules, 64, 72, 86, 91,

121, 173.

439

Guild Socialism, 51, 362 ff., 378,
380, 386, 406.

Guild System, 12, 362.

Hancock, J. G., 398.

Hardie, J. Keir, 196, 398.

Hartshorn, Vernon, 277.

Haslam, James, 396.

Haywood, W. D., 129, 134, 138,
149.

Health, Public, 410.

Hegel, 396.

Hirsch-Duncker Unions, 170 ff.

Histoire des Bourses du Travail,
by Pelloutier, 124.

Holland, 197.

Holmes, Edmoncf, 16.

,, James, 398.

Humanity L’, 75.

Immigration into U.S.A., 130.

‘ Impartial ’ persons, 288, 29s,
309, 317 f.

Independent Labour Party, 2,
396, 399-

Individualism, 5.

Industrial Council, 307 ft.

Industrial Democracy, by Mr.
and Mrs. Webb, 53, 247.

Industrial Democracy League,
274, 276, 278, 406.

Industrial Disputes Investiga¬
tion Act (Canada), 295 ff.

Industrial Organisation, 56.

,, Peace. See Social
Peace.

Industrial Socialism, by W. D.
Haywood and F. Bohn, 129,
134. 138.

Industrial Syndicalist Educa¬
tion League, 41, 156.

Industrial Unionism, 56, in, 113,
118, 128, 135, 142, 153, 160,
162, 163, 166, 176, 179, 211,
212-3, 22I< 223> 227> 234> 236*
241, 256, 272, 274, 351, 377.

Industrial Workers of the World,
Ch. V., 128, 135, 139 ff„ 143,
153, 161, 162, 211.

Industrial Workers of the World,
Preamble of, 143.

Insurance Act, 16, 33, 244, 280,
283, 374. 388,

440

INDEX

Intellectuals, 2.

International Trade Union Con¬
ference, 92.

Internationalism, 42 fL, 90-2.

Invention, 357.

Ireland, 420.

Italy, 167 if., 202.

Jaurds, Jean, 88.

Jouhaux, L., 61, 67, 95, 104, 105,
112, 114, 118, 119, 120, 128.

Jowett, F. W., 399.

Kenyon, Barnet, 396 f., 398.

Knights of Labour, 140, 241.

‘ Knox ’ Strike, 262, 415.

Kropotkin, Poter, 12, 13.

' Label ’, 97.

Labour Leader, 398.

Labour Co-partnership Associa¬
tion, 328, 332, 334 ff.

Labour Party, 5, 8, 13, 14, 15,
31-2, 36, 72, 182, 207, 21 1,
242, 283, 341, 345, Ch. XIII.,
423-

Labour Unrest, 1,14, Ch. II.

Lagardelle, Hubert, 67, 69, 74,
77, 78, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91,
109, 113, 114, 125, 126, 200,
379, 4°°-

Lansbury, G., 399.

Lassalle, F., 170.

Lawrence Strikes, 142, 144 ff.

Leadership, 275.

Leicester By-election, 396.

' Leisure ’ State, 10.

Leith Strike, 404.

Lemieux, 297.

Leroy, Maxime, 59.

Lever, Sir W., 169.

Levine, Louis, 61, 62.

Levy, Sir M., 396.

Liberalism, 15, 290, 395, 396-7,
.398, 403.

Living Wage, The, by P. Snow¬
den,. 281, 405.

Lloyd, H. D., 293.

Local Autonomy, 108, 114-6,
137, 180 ff., Ch. VIII.

Macdonald, J. Ramsay, 20, 313,

395, 397-

Machinery, 10 ff.

Maisons des Ouvriers, 117.

Man Farthest Down, The, by
Booker Washington, 131.

Management, 327, 357 ff., 382.

Mann, Tom, 40, 41, 202, 246,
251, 391-

Marat, 63.

Marx, Karl, 2, 5, 19, 64, 86, 88,
91, 123, 167, 170, 204, 330.

Maxwell, W., 341.

Metal Workers’ Union (Ger¬
many-), 176 ff., 232.

Millerand, A., 67, 79, 84.

Miners’ Eight Hours’ Act, 46, 224.
„ Federation, 43, 55, 75,
218, 223, 323, 371, 389, 407.

Miners’ Minimum Wage Act, 46,
224, 3W-

Miners’ Next Step, The, 274 ff.,
406.

‘ Mines for the Miners ’, 124.

Mines Nationalisation Bill, 345.

Minimum Wage, 46, 198, 300 ff.,
.329; .

Minorities, Rights of, 75.

Minority- Report, 33.

Mitcheli, Isaac, 294.

Money, L. G. Chiozza, 35.

Morning Post, 3.

Morris, William, 9, 13, 200, 203,
419.

Munday, W., 320.

Municipal Trading, 345.

Mutuality, S3.

Myths, Social, 123.

Napoleon hi., 63.

National LTnion of Railwaymen.
See Railwaymen.

Nationalisation, 7, 13, 28, 271,
Ch. XI., 378 ff., 381 f., 390,
391, 400, 407 f., 422.

Nationality, 27, 45.

New Age, 2, 51, 132, 362 ff., 386,
400.

New South Wales, 292, 306.

New Statesman, 51.

New Witness, 38.

New Zealand, 40, 290 ff., 304,
3°7-

News from Nowhere, by Morris,
200, 203.

Niel, L., 76, 89, 106, 120.

Nietzsche, 4, 86, 95.

INDEX 44i

Non-Unionist Question, 8, 54,
371-

Occupational Unionism, 212, 229.
Office du Travail, 60.

Officials, 52, 56, 109, 205 ff., 261,
265, 273, 275, 279-80, 283.
O’Grady, J., 256, 399-
On the Firing Line, 138, 144, 159-
Orhell, H., 390.

Orientations Syndicates, Les, by
V. Diligent, 59.

Osborne Judgment, 20, 282.
Osborne Judgment and After,
The, by W. M. Geldart, 282.
Ouvrier Textile, L’ , 75-
Overlapping Unions, 175.
Ownership, 352.

Oxford, 18.

Panama Canal, 364.

Parliament, 4, 19. 26, 47-
Parliamentary Committee of the
Trade Union Congress, 120,
242, 398. .

Parti Ouvrier Franfais, 04.
Pataud, ‘King’, 98, 106, 124,
200.

Paterson Strikes, 142.
Paul-Boncour, J., 59-
Pelloutier, Fernand, 59, 66, 07,
90, 98, 99, 124.

Piece-work, 321.

Placement, 85, 106.

Plea for Amalgamation, 253.
Poincar6, Henri, 92.

Political action, 47, 90-1, 37b,
Ch. XIII-
Por, Odon, 167.

Port of London Authority, 3x3,
390-

Port Sunlight, 169.

Post Office, 379. 421-
Pouget, Emile, 67, 70, 73. 74- 7b.
78, 83, 84, 89, 93. 94. 98, 105.
119, 121, 124, 200.

Premium bonus system, 320-1,

See Parlia-

323-4.

Pretence, House of.
nxent.

Prices and Wages, 35, 4°* *■
Producers, Ch. I., Ch. XI., and

passim.

See Trade Unionism.

Production, 353

Production and Distribution, 5,
7. 346 f-

Profit-sharing, 320, 331, 332,

335-

Proudhon, 73.

Prudential Insurance Co., 375.

389-

Psychology, 325.

Public opinion, 34, Ch. IX., 405.

Radicalism, 5.

Railwaymen, 51, 55. 221, 222,
226-7, 261 ff., 269-7°. 283,

371, 390, 404-
Railway Strike, 251, 403.
Redintegration of Labour, 12, 13.
Reflexions sur la Violence, 4, 67,

85- „

Rkformistes, 62, 72, 75-7, °o, 04,
89-90, 101, 106, ixo, III.
Renard, V ., 86, 90.

Riches and Poverty, by Chiozza

Money, 35.

Right to the Whole Product of
Labour, 349 ff.

Rights, 346.

Road Board, 366, 380.

Roberts, G. H., 396.

Rochdale Pioneers, 338.
Roosevelt, Theodore, 161.

Rose, F. H., 251.

Rousseau, J. J., 23, 29, 63.
Ruskin, 9.

Sabotage, 77, 80, 94. Io8-
St. John, Vincent, 154, 163.
Sanders, W. S., 177-
Scientific Management, 321.

325 ff-

Scurr, J., 397- , ,

Self-governing workshop, 332,

337 ff-

Semi-skilled workers, 232-3.
Servile State, 4, n, 13. 4T7-
Shaw, Bernard, 417.
Shipbuilding, 132, 227 ff., 273.
Shipwrights, 228.

Shipyard Agreement, 228.

Shop piece-work, 12, 320, 324-5

Sidneywebbicalism, 3.

Siemens, A., 415-
Simons, A. M., 159-
Snowden, Philip, 281, 398, 4°5-
Social Contract, by Rousseau, 23

442

INDEX

Social-Democratic Unions (Ger¬
many), 170 ff.

Social peace, 77, 84, 104, 125,
Ch. IX., 328 f„ 388.

Socialism, 5, 14, 31, 55, 346 ff.,
393-4-

Socialism of Institutions, 70.
Socialisme Ouvrier, Le. See
Lagardelle.

Socialist, The, 142.
Socialist-Labour Party, 142.
Socialist Party in France, 84, 85-
6, 88, 102.

Socialist Party in Germany,
173 ff., 182.

Socialist Party in U.S.A., 159-
60.

Sociological Review, 131, 352.
Solidarity, 274.

Sombart, W., 162.

Sorel, Georges, 4, 67, 85, 87, 93,

97, 98, 107, 123, 127, 167, 194,
200.

Sou du Soldat, 92.

Soupes Communistes, 80, 118.
South Africa, 294.

South Wales Miners, 218, 224-5,
274 ff., 385, 399, 406.

Spain, 203.

Speeding-up, 320 ff.

Spencer, Herbert, 5, 14.

State Capitalism, 6, 378, 422.

,, Interference, 25, 28, 408 f.
,, Monopoly, 6.

Steam Engine Makers, 222.

Steel Trust, 129.

‘ Stop-in ’ Strike, 96.

Strike against War, 196.

Strikes, 15, 30, 33, 46-7, 56, 163,
191, 261 ff., 269, 275, 279-80,
295 ff., 312, 333, 401 ff., 405.
Suffragists, 95.

Sweated trades, 292, 299 ff.
Sweden, 182-90, 197, 208, 310,
423-

Syndicalism, 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13,
14, 17, 22, 24, 25, 26, 31, 37,
45. 46, 52, 55. 59-6o, 67, 77-8,

98, no, 124, 126, 156, 165, 166,
168, 194, 199, 201, 204, 274,
33L 338, Ch. XI., 391, Ch.
XIII., 399, 409, 420.

Syndicalism, by E. C. Ford and
W. Z. Foster, 141, 157.

Syndicalisme Frafifais, Le, by
L. Jouhaux, 60, 104, 105, 112,
115, 118, 119.

Syndicalist, 157, 161.

Syndicalist League of North
America, 156-7.

Syndicalist Unions (Germany),
172.

Syndicat National des Chemins
de Fer, 76.

Syndicats, 58, 60, Chs. III., IV.,

66.

Syndicats de Fonctionnaires, Les,
by J. Paul-Boncour, 59.

Syndicats, Ftdtration Nationale
de, 65.

Syndicats jaunes, 60, 73.

,, mixtes, 60, 83.

Tacitus, 285.

Taff Vale decision, 20.

Tammany Hall, 141.

Tariff controversy, 25.

Taxi Strike (London), 80.
Thomas, J. H., 221.

Thorne, Will, 399.

Tillett, Ben, 40, 234, 235.

Trade Boards, 104.

.. Act, 15, 48, 299,

303 ff., 306, 318.

Trade Disputes Act, 36, 402.

,, Union Acts, 20, 255-6,
282, 284, 398.

Trade Union Congress, 72, 75,
242, 244, 290, 341, 353.

Trade Union government, 52,
56, Ch. VIII

Trade Unionism, 5, 6, 8, 11-7,
20, 24, 26-8, 31, 32, 46-7, 51,
55, nr, 112, 121, 172, 175, Chs.
VII. -VIII., 327-8, 331, 338,
Chs. XI. -XIII., 414, 422 ff.
Trade Unionism and benefits, 72,
121.

Trades Councils, 353, 409.
Transformations de la Puissance
Publique, Les, by M. Leroy, 59.
Transport Workers’ Federation,
43, 217, 234 ff., 272, 273, 371,

403-

Trautmann, W. E., 141, 155, 159.
Travailleur du Bdtiment, Le, 96,
Trusts, 129, 138, 348, 354.

INDEX

443

Tutorial Classes, 17.

Twicers, 283.

Unions de Syndicats, 117. See
Bourses du Travail.

Unions Departmentales, 117.
Unions Regionales, 117.

United Machine Workers, 222.
Unrest, Labour. See Labour
Unrest.

Ure, Alexander, 397.

Value, theory of, 349 2.

Victoria, 293, 299 ££., 3°4> 3°6-

Voyage Revolutionnaire, by V
Griffuelhes, 74, 101, 107, 113.

Wage System, 31, 90, 152, 4l6 2-
Wages, 8, 15, 38- 44. 33° f-> 36l>
391, 401.

Wages Boards, 48, 290, 299 ft.
Wages in America, 135-
Waldeck- Rousseau, 59, 63, 07,
84, 116, 387.

Wall Street Journal, 159-
Wallas, Graham, 352.

Walling, W. English, 156-
Ware, Fabian, 4, 27.
Washington, Booker, 131.

Webb, Sidney and Beatrice, 2, 3,

8, 33, 53, 1x8, 247, 352, 4l6-
Wells, H. G., 53-
Western Australia, 292.

Western Federation of Miners

(U.S.A.), 140, 152, 158-
What is and what might be, by
E. G. A. Holmes, 16.

What Syndicalism Is, by S. and
B. Webb, 118, 416.

What the Worker Wants, 53-
Why Strikes are Lost, by W. L.

Trautmann, 141, 155. I59-
Williams, B. H., 140.

Wilson, Havelock, 79.

Women’s Co-operative Guild,

Women’s Trade Union League,
306.

‘ Work ’ State, 10.

Worker and his Country, The, by
Fabian Ware, 4,27.

Workers’ Educational Associa¬
tion, 17, 384.

Workers’ Union, 231.

Workshop Committees, 12, 33L
361.

Yvetot, Georges, 112.

Zimmern, A. E., 131.

Printed by

Morrison & Gibb Limited

Edinburgh f

Date Due

f

1 ' ' / ’ A

"1 - - - -

rtt

7

j

—

- :fu-

§Mfl

— ~—

u1 i

i 71

Mf g

} 1977-1

iro t> i5

n —

** -

- -=* 9

s /

A

PR 2 0 zflng

«5 - - t ■ > • j

—

HD 6664 ,C6 1915

Cole, G. D. H. (George Do 010101 000

The world of labour; a discuss

0

63

0202387 8

TRENT UNIVERSITY

HD6664 ,C6 1915

author

Cole, George Douglas

Howard

TITLE

- Hl£_ world nf labour

date due

BORROWS

J

b~ > * - - - — _

175473